I have to wonder...are you being consciously disingenuous, or are you really that stupid?
He says "assault rifles", and you link to an article talking about ALL firearms
Or are you really that stupid?
You do not get to discriminate based upon physical disability.
Uber can fix this in about 5 minutes by giving drivers a button to push to waive wait time fees due to disability
Those two sentences do not mesh. If you are waiving wait time fees for disabled people only, then you are by definition discriminating based on disability. If you want to NOT discriminate based on disability, then you have to either:
1. Charge everyone the same wait fee like they're currently doing, or
2. Don't charge anyone wait fees.
You can't treat people differently and then pretend that's not discrimination.
Angelo, I've seen you post a lot of incredibly stupid shit over the years, but claiming that water has "memory" which magically allows it to heal people is a new low even for you.
You mean a reason like "because murder is already illegal"?
I think the basic point is that having a black/brown skin still puts you at a disadvantage.
This is, of course, nonsense; confusing correlation and causation. It's like observing the fact that the vast majority of those in prison are male, and deciding that having a penis puts you at a disadvantage.
The world is much more complicated than the "Urmaghurd Cis-stemic Ray-cism!" crowd wants to believe.
You sure about that? I can't find any reference for your claim. The relevant regulations are here:
https://lois-laws.justice.gc.c...
Nothing as far as I can see says that paper records are required. On the contrary, paragraphs such as:
"(2) Where the owner of an aircraft keeps the technical records for the aircraft as electronic data, the owner shall ensure that the electronic data system that is used complies with section 103.04 and the Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance Standards."
at least seem to imply that all of the records can be kept digitally as long as it's done in an approved electronic system.
rehabilitation centers (naturally with mandatory attendance).
That's a fantastic euphemism! I think I'll start refering to jails as "extended sleepovers with mandatory attendance".
In order to show that maximized suffering is un-necessary to the social goal of reducing crime, I only have to show that there exists one system that has done so with less suffering.
Nobody has even suggested maximising suffering, so it's no mean truck to argue against that particular strawman. On the other hand if you're trying to prove that being less punitive is inherently better than being more punitive (as you suggested) then you've got a hell of a long struggle ahead.
Yeah, Japan is totally a failed state.
We see the same thing with criminal rehabilitation. No matter how many studies show that countries that take a less punitive approach spend less money, have a lower recidivism, and a lower overall crime rate people here just shout louder that we need to get TOUGH on crime and POUND them into the ground.
Well if being less punitive has all of those advantages, then we should just get rid of jails and police entirely, and we'll have no more crime!
Or maybe you just have the whole causation/corollation thing backwards, plus are cherry-picking by ignoring countries with draconian laws and low incarceration rates.
What if you hit a light post, fly through the windscreen and hit a passing innocent pedestrian at 60mph?
Then that insanely unlucky pedestrian is injured or dies. Is this truly a serious concern for you?
Every year there are north of 20,000 vehicle occupants killed in car crashes, and more than 40% of them weren't wearing seatbelts at the time. That's to say roughly 10,000 people who aren't wearing their seatbelt die every year. Out of those 10,000 deaths, how many have been launched into random pedestrians? I can't think of a single case
No, he's just embarassing himself.
You should feel embarrassment for suggesting/believing that the ravings of a random anonymous nutbag can somehow embarass an entire political ideology.
Jealousy is good when justified.
Extremely big differences in wealth are unjust, therefore jealousy is good.
"How do you know your jealousy is justified?"
"Because big wealth differences are unjust."
"Ok, how do you know big wealth differences are unjust?"
"Because they make me jealous."
If you are worried about rockets being explodey, they carry less fuel than international airliners... which fly over all modern cities today.
This is true but misleading, since airliners do not carry a nice handy bundle of concentrated oxidizer right next to their fuel. It's the fuel/oxidizer combo which makes rockets particularly explodey.
An airliner which strikes a large hollow building (see 9/11) can create an impressive fireball due to the fuel dispersing and mixing with the air inside the building. An airliner which just flattens itself against the ground tends to create a much smaller boom followed by a long-lasting conflagration. A rocket will create a much more impressive boom regardless of whether it hits a building or the ground.
Nice to hear you've got some sanity returning to the island.
Ignoring for a minute the stupidity of suggesting that the military budget is somehow related to oil subsidies
It's later than you think, the joint Russian-American space mission has already begun.
