No. Just calling a spade a spade. What explanation can there be to mention that the "other guy" is/was the "ex-boyfriend" as a counter-argument? What relevant information does that elucidate? What is the point?

Not as much as mentioning that the "other guy", the harasser, was "the ex-boyfriend" as if that explained things, without context with which to interpret that precious pearl of information.

If you say so, it must be so. See, if the shoe fits, wear it or see a podiatrist (or in this case, psychiatrist.)

English is not my first language, so... you lose?

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120930201320/fairytail/images/3/30/You_don't_say.png

http://youtu.be/b6qyX1L8p_Q

Well, they are. Content does not have to have the same longevity or life-cycle as the URI that once pointed to it, though.

The risk doesn't vanish. It simply gets masked, just as one would mask if we have an all Caucasian (or X=whatever ethnic label of your choosing) workforce where racial problems vanish all of the sudden.

It's going to be hilarious when openly gay people join your workforce en mass.

That women shouldn't have to deal with harassment?

Men don't sexually harass men... usually. And most men do not sexually harass women either. It's just the perverted few who think it is women's fault for being unable (or unreasonably unwilling) to deal with their creepy world views.

It is the same argument that was made against Blacks from working shoulder to shoulder with Caucasians - they'd get harassed, and when wouldn't put up, there would be complains that they are not up to the task of dealing with "the realities of work" (read, "being a good boy.")

Mirror, mirror. Who had the biggest problem with women of them all?

It is not "companies". Not even "some companies", but some men.

It also means fostering an environment where juvenile-minded males never grow up into reasonable, professional men, fostering a culture that eventually and surely will spawn a molester or sociopath.

No, you are wrong. I know that deep down. Posting as myself because my gonads prevent me from posting like a coward.

Indeed. I'd add that part is the same part creepy sociopaths do not get when they "misunderstand" a "no" for a "yes".

Anyone who says this:

is the type of person I would not want near me, friends, co-workers or relavites.

And maybe he needs the help of a A+ English major so that he knows how to explain himself better </rimshot>

Maybe he sucks at English comprehension (and the whole comment was some type of projection)?

Citations please.

That's what locks and safes are for. It's not rocket science and yet the hordes of idiots that live among the anti-gun crowd (and the idiots who own guns without a lock) seem too stupid to grasp this very simple concept.

There is data collected by the FBI and local state agencies if you'd like to check. For starters not all homicides are gun-related. Secondly, the question is not whether it is strangers murdering strangers, but whether 1) poverty and drug-related crimes/drug-related environments are fueling the bulk of homicides (and gun-related homicides in particular) and 2) the typical perpetrator has already a crime record.

The data I alluded, collected by various law enforcement agencies and 3rd party organizations/analysts points into that direction. African Americans and Hispanics (my community) are dis-proportionally represented in gun-related homicides. When you break down gun-related homicide by race, we find that among non-Hispanic Whites, the murder rates are comparable (slightly higher but still comparable) to those in Western Europe.

Furthermore, 80% of gun-related homicides are committed by hand guns, not the ZOMG assault weapons politicians like to ban. I cannot find the link to the FBI study where it showed the type of handguns used the most in homicides, but it clearly mentioned the majority of them were on the cheap end, 2nd-hand saturday night special type of hand guns, not the $500+ firearms the typical law-abiding gun-owner possess.

So, clearly, race and income are a factor. Since race and income are (still) tightly correlated in the US, we can generalize this by simply saying it is a class-related phenomenon. Add to the fact that drug-related crimes significantly affect African Americans (where there has been a marked breakdown in families and an increase in single-parent families), Hispanics and to a lesser extend Caucasians in the South due to the "meth" belt, we see a strong correlation with the war on drugs.

Now, I'm not saying we should not have tighter controls with firearms. I own firearms, and I conceal carry wherever it is legal. But I also acknowledge we should have much better ways to track who buys or sells what. Illegally acquired firearms and straw sales are a major factor in gun-related crime. So we have to deal with it.

But the primordial factors here are race/economics, poverty, even health ([a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/01/03/how-lead-caused-americas-violent-crime-epidemic/" target="new"]refer to lead poisoning as a possible cause in the spike of crime from the late 60's to the 80s[/a]). Most importantly, it is culture.

Fins and Swiss have significant %s of gun-ownership, and the Swiss can open carry, and yet you do not see the significant murder rates as in the US (though there are rates of spousal murder where alcohol is involved, but that is a universal.)

Honduras is the capital murder of the world, and although gun laws are flexible, most people simply do not own a piece legally (prices are out of reach to most - ownership is for the well-to-do). Poverty is rampant, the police is ill-equipped to deal with gang/drug related violence, and the country lacks institutions to deal with recidivism.

Nicaragua, adjacent to Honduras is the poorer of the two, with gun laws and legal private ownership %s are pretty much the same. And yet, murder rates are smaller than in Costa Rica (a much richer, more democratic and educated country.) Police is well-equipped and have actively engaged in social measures to deal and prevent gang-related violence. People have pretty much shunned violence (perhaps as a response of suffering decades of civil wars.)

So, it is not just weapons ownership, but positive crime prevention measures that go above and beyond mere incarceration. It is not just the number of weapons possessed, but poverty and family breakdown. It is culture.

Both the anti-gun lobby and the NRA minions have the entire enchilada wrong. They both focus on a faux proxy, guns. Because that is what sells to the retarded masses. No one wants to deal with the real issues, which is culture, education, economics and poverty, family (de)composition, an unfair war on drugs, and an unfair justice system that is, let's face it, not race (or income) blind.

Let us go and defend/ban ownership of ZOMG $1000K assault weapons which do little to nothing to most of gun-related crime. Let us defend/ban ownership of handguns (that will never be nixed, not in a hundred years). It is easy to fight about that than to deal with the real issues. Sources:

http://www.theatlanticcities.c...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/al...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj...

http://projects.wsj.com/murder...

If he really wanted to ask questions about freedoms, he should have asked about the LGBT rights in Russia or Chechens' right for self-determination. In the US, asking about surveillance violations is the right question to ask because, by and large, it is one of the most pressing issues. In Russia, that ain't.

The proper question to ask when it comes to freedom is always the one concerning the greatest, most infamous violations.

Finally, someone that gets it.

You are being facetious and spiteful. Yes, there are still hundred of millions of poor in India, but also, many hundred of millions have been lifted out of poverty because of the emergent tech/service industry.

In 2003-2004, the % of population in India living below the poverty line was over 37%. A decade later (meaning now), it is at 21%. This is a 56.75% drop in extreme poverty in a decade. Not shabby if you ask me. And if you consider that the population % living under poverty was almost 60% in the 1950s, then in 6 decades, poverty %s have been reduced by 2/3. Again, not shabby.

That there are still significant problems, like malnutrition, and a still vulnerable low-to-middle class? Of course. But to pretend or dismiss the significant advances that country has made just because they still have a lot to fix, that's disingenuous. It is equally disingenuous to pretend India made a fundamental mistake in investing in tech and education simply because that did not prove a 100% failure-free solution to all the significant problems the country had (and still has.)