But surely some people consider it unethical to leave useful fools hampered by normalcy bias starve to death without their food and with their new gold riches!
(Just remember where they live so that you can return for your gold when they finally kick the bucket.)
Were people afraid the computers would make mistakes and overcharge them or what?
They were afraid that the computer will send them a bill asking them to either pay $0.00 or to go directly to jail.
They lie, lie and lie some more.
Are you implying they made the wrong career choice and should have gone for statistician jobs instead?
A salt made of Selenium and Tin.
Apparently, the author is a lunatic from some tinpot university.
As the Second Amendment does not make distinction between different types of armaments, no, I do not mean firearms, I mean weapons.
So I guess that, as per second amendment, private ownership of land mines, sarin bombs, nukes etc. are all perfectly fine? Even if it would violate international treaties? I didn't know that. I guess there actually is a line somewhere there no matter how underspecified the second amendment is.
Not being able to serve active duty in the official military is not the same thing as being "unfit" to protect your homeland from tyranny and invasion; for example, while losing a leg above the kneecap might disqualify you from Selective Service, it by no means diminishes your ability to hold a position and fire a weapon.
Agreed. But I wasn't arguing that the criteria should be the same for both. It's just that the term "disabled" is too broad for both purposes - as it covers both people who should and shouldn't be given weapons (missing a foot vs. being mentally handicapped, for example), both "disabled people should be denied weapons" and "disabled people shouldn't be denied weapons" are irrational opinions unless further elaborated what "disabled" means. Of course "he doesn't think that disabled people should have access to weapons", since the opposite would be dangerous. And he probably doesn't think that disabled people shouldn't have access to weapons either. It's basic logic.
If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to
I haven't made any ad hominem. I'm just asking for sane reasoning. That's not an ad hominem, that's a call to put aside emotions and to use logic.
"Mr. Watson, come here, I want you." -- Alexander Graham Bell
