They aren't the same literal acts... but both are violent acts perpetuated solely by a difference in belief. Whether you kill or simply beat up, both are ultimately violent acts spawned from nothing less than the exact same hatred of things that are different.

The all-caps usage is acceptable... but in addition to being the company name, Lego (or LEGO) is a word that refers to any number of individual pieces, Adding an s on the end to pluralize it is about as correct as putting an 's' after words like sheep.

I'm not saying that people don't have every right to be pissed off about having their privacy invaded.... I'm saying that when violence is *ever* the defaut response to simply being angry about something that is not physically threatening in any way, shape, or form, then there is already a problem with the emotional maturity of that particular person.

I'd be inclined to not include Buzz Aldrin in that category because the person that he assaulted was physically stalking him, and deliberately creating a situation where Mr. Aldrin did not have the physical freedom to ignore him or walk away (since he and his camera crew simply followed him when he tried). That said, I think Mr. Aldrin should have told them to leave him alone, or he would place harassment charges on them if they tried to follow. It's not like he wouldn't have had a legitimate case against them.

Anyways.... supposedly, human beings are a civilization... so maybe people should try acting civilized. Your neighbor being an asshole should never be any justification for you to be one. See ethical vigilantism (point 12) on the ethics scoreboard.

Also... I'm hysterical how, exactly? Because I compare the threat of so-called "acceptable" violence today that would caused by what ultimately amounts to a mere a difference in beliefs (one person places more value on their privacy than another person places on the same person's privacy) to an example of violence in history over what also fundamentally amounted to a mere difference in beliefs?

Your stats are wrong... there are 30 firearms per HUNDRED people in Canada.

A (slightly) higher percentage of Canadians have firearms than Americans, but the difference in statistics comes from the fact that most people in the US who are armed in the first place possess multiple firearms.

I'd dare say not so much "hopeful", but perhaps "morbidly curious" would be the more accurate term.

Obviously such an overreaction would be wrong on every level, but when a person has actually attempted non-violent means to deal with a problem and only faced grief over it, doesn't that indicate that there's something already wrong with the system?

Pennsylvania is a two-party consent state, so by my understanding of wiretapping laws there, what this kid did was illegal.

Now, this isn't something I would want to see, but I am morbidly curious about what would happen if somebody tried a mechanism like this after being a victim of being bullied, got charged with wiretapping... and then when it happened again, the victim decides to simply kill the bullies in retaliation.

Now clearly, homicide would probably be considered "excessive force" as a means of dealing with bullying, but I think that this hypothetical scenario also shows that two-party or all-party consent requirements for recording might be broken. If a person tries non-violent means to get the matter dealt with, and only gets punished for it... then what difference should it make, in that sense, whether they resort to violent extremes anyways?

In Pennsylvania, if you secretly record somebody who is committing a crime, then instead of being considered helpful to the police by providing it as evidence, you would be be considered guilty of another crime yourself (which would then suggest to me that the video could not be used as evidence.... which would strike me me as pretty amazing if the crime that was recorded were heinous enough).

Someone who is so easily enraged that they would resort to physical violence over what ultimately amounts to a difference in beliefs over an intangible issue like privacy is no better than those who have, in the past, gone around killing nonbelievers in the name of God.

That's perfectly fine, but in practice, the HR people are the only ones that you are ever going to have a chance of seeing until you've done something to get yourself noticed by somebody higher up.

If you have connections that can get you past HR without any hassle, that's all very well and good... but not everyone is so well connected.

I decided to double-check that point on a government web site, and in fact, all "slower traffic keep right" signs mean is that the road is expected to accomodate a variety of vehicles which may be moving at various speeds (and of course, by law, all of them should be at or below the posted limit), and where the inner lanes are reserved exclusively for vehicles that are travelling at or very near the posted speed limit, other vehicles which may need to travel more slowly are advised to use the outside lane. Slow moving vehicles travelling below the posted limit are forbidden from using the left lane except where it is necessary for a left turn, but under no circumstances is a vehicle going the posted limit prohibited from using the lane, even if other vehicles around them are speeding.

"Keep right except to pass" is another sign which only occurs where an auxiliary lane has been added to a highway for passing purposes only. Usually, the roadway expands in width, with the lane markings shifting the existing lanes slightly to the right, making room for a new lane on the left, similar to what you mgiht find near an intersection having a dedicated left-turning lane All lanes to the right of this new lane are permitted for regular driving, however. The auxiliarly lane is usually of limited length, and the purpose of the sign is to caution drivers who might otherwise expect to be able to utilize the additional lane for regular cruising.

I'd argue that the people who are doing the punching are no less pretentious *or* self-righteous.... like they have made it their own self-appointed duty to, under threat of physical violence, try to make other people see the world as they do, and have a similar set of priorities and values.

This is different from people killing in the name of religion how, exactly?

And what kind of world is it that you live in that this sort of thing is actually amusing?

But honestly, the degree at least helps you get your foot in the door long enough that they may at least be willing to talk to you.

When you are competing with dozens of people for the same job, and if many of them have a degree and you do not, regardless of your actual skill or talent, in my experience it's unfortunately true that the employer probably won't look at your resume any longer than it takes to throw it in the round file.

That said... I've also known people who have lied about their degree in order to get a job... and it hasn't ever worked out for them very well.

It's time consuming, it's expensive, and it'll put you in debt for years to come as you work like an ass to pay it off... but as one who's travelled both roads, I can only say that it's worth it.

but violence is fun. there aren't any laws against being an asshole so too many fucks can go around legally bullying everyone and there's nothing you can do about it legally.

You can ask them to stop... or you can go somewhere that the owner can tell the glasshole to get lost or be charged with trespassing.

the only recourse these days is to kick someone's teeth in and wipe the smug look off their face.

When violence becomes the "only recourse" to something that is not, by itself, physically threatening in any way, one may want to consider whether or not there is something already seriously wrong with their own world view.

It's absolutely no different than those who have gone around killing nonbelievers in the name of religion.

And a person smugly proclaiming that it is their right to become physically violent in retaliation is any better?

And I cannot wait to see people who kick the shift out of glassholes facing legal consequences for thinking that they somehow have a right to enforce what they believe on others through violence.