Moderator: Community Team
warmonger1981 wrote:The government job is not to protect you. It's there to enforce the law. It's the political correctness that's the problem.
warmonger1981 wrote:It's the political correctness that's the problem.
warmonger1981 wrote:Kids can physically assault teachers and don't get expelled. It's considered part of their culture to be violent and you must understand that. Not punish it.
2dimes wrote:Malaria? Interesting.
Also I think of diarrheal diseases as more of a living in a Castle 300 years ago problem.
warmonger1981 wrote:The government job is not to protect you. It's there to enforce the law.
warmonger1981 wrote:It's the political correctness that's the problem.
warmonger1981 wrote:@mrs if your interested.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -violence/
warmonger1981 wrote:I know you read fast. You might have missed this section.
Since continuing the statistical disparities is not politically correct, the district’s officials have moved on to Plan B: lowering the behavior standards to the extent that meaningful consequences to unacceptable behavior are eliminated. As a result, offenses such as “willful disobedience,” for example, are no longer subject to disciplinary action. Students engaging in this type of behavior may either chat with a school psychologist or simply be moved to another classroom.
mrswdk wrote:Nowhere does that [paragraph] say that the students who were violent towards teachers went unpunished.
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
riskllama wrote:perhaps they(your govt.) are trying to keep you down with fear, /?
hey, that's neat - i can ask / a question with one key!!!
Dukasaur wrote:Some perspective:
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism/
The chart can't be used for rigorous analysis because data is drawn from different samples and different years. I'm presenting it here as a "food for thought" kind of thing, not attempting to state that these numbers are gospel.
Just as one "for instance", around the world about 100 people die in highway accidents for every person who dies in a terrorist attack. We all know there are a lot of aggressive asshole drivers who never seem to get caught. If we're trying to save lives, would we be better off putting more cops into spying on Islamic websites, or more cops on the highway?
2dimes wrote:Malaria? Interesting.
Also I think of diarrheal diseases as more of a living in a Castle 300 years ago problem.
/ wrote:riskllama wrote:perhaps they(your govt.) are trying to keep you down with fear, /?
hey, that's neat - i can ask / a question with one key!!!
That's and interesting take. Political logic is a curious thing; get results: we're doing great, spend more money so it's even better; Doesn't work: not enough money, spend more so it works.
It's rather cynical, but this is the same old story that lets all the politicians pump up their pet narrative of "you are not safe, so hurry up and [fund the police/give homeland security more power/get rid of guns/buy more guns/address mental health/go to war]." I don't think that the government is so cunning rather than so stupid though.
I am not afraid, just tired and aggravated.Dukasaur wrote:Some perspective:
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism/
The chart can't be used for rigorous analysis because data is drawn from different samples and different years. I'm presenting it here as a "food for thought" kind of thing, not attempting to state that these numbers are gospel.
Just as one "for instance", around the world about 100 people die in highway accidents for every person who dies in a terrorist attack. We all know there are a lot of aggressive asshole drivers who never seem to get caught. If we're trying to save lives, would we be better off putting more cops into spying on Islamic websites, or more cops on the highway?
This is true, but it's cliche. You could say this about anything:
"Only" a fraction of a fraction of kidnappings are stranger-danger ransoms or murders, so why should we waste so many resources on Amber Alerts? Spend it on traffic instead.
Drugs? Traffic.
Domestic violence? Traffic.
Even if it's a tiny problem realistically, it's very dangerous to our society psychologically, so we should fight it.
Besides that, I'm not asking for some Person of Interest or CSI Cyber stuff, we don't need any new resources to address this. This is criminal behavior already in the public domain. Do a youtube search for bomb making instructions, or chemical weapon recipes; you will find videos for or by terrorist organizations. Honestly, we might save a bit of cash tossing these morons in Guantanamo rather than following them around for a few years. As for social media's end, it would be more than easy to censor this information.
We live in an age where Universal can shut down copyright infringement in an hour, but ISIS and drug cartels get viral theme songs.
Symmetry wrote:/ wrote:riskllama wrote:perhaps they(your govt.) are trying to keep you down with fear, /?
hey, that's neat - i can ask / a question with one key!!!
That's and interesting take. Political logic is a curious thing; get results: we're doing great, spend more money so it's even better; Doesn't work: not enough money, spend more so it works.
It's rather cynical, but this is the same old story that lets all the politicians pump up their pet narrative of "you are not safe, so hurry up and [fund the police/give homeland security more power/get rid of guns/buy more guns/address mental health/go to war]." I don't think that the government is so cunning rather than so stupid though.
I am not afraid, just tired and aggravated.Dukasaur wrote:Some perspective:
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism/
The chart can't be used for rigorous analysis because data is drawn from different samples and different years. I'm presenting it here as a "food for thought" kind of thing, not attempting to state that these numbers are gospel.
Just as one "for instance", around the world about 100 people die in highway accidents for every person who dies in a terrorist attack. We all know there are a lot of aggressive asshole drivers who never seem to get caught. If we're trying to save lives, would we be better off putting more cops into spying on Islamic websites, or more cops on the highway?
This is true, but it's cliche. You could say this about anything:
"Only" a fraction of a fraction of kidnappings are stranger-danger ransoms or murders, so why should we waste so many resources on Amber Alerts? Spend it on traffic instead.
Drugs? Traffic.
Domestic violence? Traffic.
Even if it's a tiny problem realistically, it's very dangerous to our society psychologically, so we should fight it.
Besides that, I'm not asking for some Person of Interest or CSI Cyber stuff, we don't need any new resources to address this. This is criminal behavior already in the public domain. Do a youtube search for bomb making instructions, or chemical weapon recipes; you will find videos for or by terrorist organizations. Honestly, we might save a bit of cash tossing these morons in Guantanamo rather than following them around for a few years. As for social media's end, it would be more than easy to censor this information.
We live in an age where Universal can shut down copyright infringement in an hour, but ISIS and drug cartels get viral theme songs.
Do you feel your post should be censored for telling people how to find information on making chemical weapons? Or for telling people to look for it?
Should you be publicising this kind of information? Should the powers that be put you on a list of people to keep an eye on for telling people to find weapon recipes and giving them instructions on how to do so?
/ wrote:Symmetry wrote:/ wrote:riskllama wrote:perhaps they(your govt.) are trying to keep you down with fear, /?
hey, that's neat - i can ask / a question with one key!!!
That's and interesting take. Political logic is a curious thing; get results: we're doing great, spend more money so it's even better; Doesn't work: not enough money, spend more so it works.
It's rather cynical, but this is the same old story that lets all the politicians pump up their pet narrative of "you are not safe, so hurry up and [fund the police/give homeland security more power/get rid of guns/buy more guns/address mental health/go to war]." I don't think that the government is so cunning rather than so stupid though.
I am not afraid, just tired and aggravated.Dukasaur wrote:Some perspective:
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism/
The chart can't be used for rigorous analysis because data is drawn from different samples and different years. I'm presenting it here as a "food for thought" kind of thing, not attempting to state that these numbers are gospel.
Just as one "for instance", around the world about 100 people die in highway accidents for every person who dies in a terrorist attack. We all know there are a lot of aggressive asshole drivers who never seem to get caught. If we're trying to save lives, would we be better off putting more cops into spying on Islamic websites, or more cops on the highway?
This is true, but it's cliche. You could say this about anything:
"Only" a fraction of a fraction of kidnappings are stranger-danger ransoms or murders, so why should we waste so many resources on Amber Alerts? Spend it on traffic instead.
Drugs? Traffic.
Domestic violence? Traffic.
Even if it's a tiny problem realistically, it's very dangerous to our society psychologically, so we should fight it.
Besides that, I'm not asking for some Person of Interest or CSI Cyber stuff, we don't need any new resources to address this. This is criminal behavior already in the public domain. Do a youtube search for bomb making instructions, or chemical weapon recipes; you will find videos for or by terrorist organizations. Honestly, we might save a bit of cash tossing these morons in Guantanamo rather than following them around for a few years. As for social media's end, it would be more than easy to censor this information.
We live in an age where Universal can shut down copyright infringement in an hour, but ISIS and drug cartels get viral theme songs.
Do you feel your post should be censored for telling people how to find information on making chemical weapons? Or for telling people to look for it?
Should you be publicising this kind of information? Should the powers that be put you on a list of people to keep an eye on for telling people to find weapon recipes and giving them instructions on how to do so?
It's not policy yet, so no; ex post facto laws are illegal in my country. I believe that policy should be changed to prevent terror aligned activity. Should I repeat this post after policy is changed, then sure.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: ConfederateSS