Thread: Current events/news

Sandy Hook was a hax

Originally Posted by cmind

Sandy Hook was a hax

* hoax

I agree.






Here is a bonus:

The Pacific and Nazca plates have been busy lately. A few mid-level earthquakes near L.A. a few weeks ago, the 8.2 off the coast of Chile yesterday, and now a 5.8 near Panama today. Good discussion topics for my geology class.

Edit: 7.4 magnitude earthquake just happened off Chile (10:43 PM EDT).

Edit 2: USGS upgraded it to a 7.8 magnitude earthquake, and places the epicenter on-land.

Just heard about the after shock. Damn, LA got off easy. Must be all the Scientologism.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The Pacific and Nazca plates have been busy lately. A few mid-level earthquakes near L.A. a few weeks ago, the 8.2 off the coast of Chile yesterday, and now a 5.8 near Panama today. Good discussion topics for my geology class.

Edit: 7.4 magnitude earthquake just happened off Chile (10:43 PM EDT).

Edit 2: USGS upgraded it to a 7.8 magnitude earthquake, and places the epicenter on-land.

We need Snake Plissken.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eZ3cxa9GWU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFgYji4l8U8

and how pathetic smh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlrPDDwZrEQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vktP1tGIXu0

Mozilla's CEO Brenden Eich resigned after OKCupid promoted a Mozilla boycott because the CEO donated 1,000 dollars to prop 8 in 2008. If you aren't aware, prop 8 was a California ballot to ban gay marriage.

Mozilla CEO Resigns After Calif. Gay Marriage Ban Campaign Donation - ABC News

Gay marriage people are hypocrites. They want gay marriage but they won't allow polygamy.

That's funny because one major argument against gay marriage is that it's a slippery slope and next people will push to marry their dogs. Like it's the gateway marriage, and here you are calling activists hypocrites for not trying to take a mile with an inch. By those standards, why aren't people that only support heterosexual marriage just as hypocritical?

Legally speaking polygamy would be hard to do, the whole point of gay marriage is to give your same-sex significant other the right to de facto inherit your shit if you die without a will, or keep you plugged in (or pull it) if you go on life-support without a living will, or allow the joint adoption of a child so if the natural parent dies the spouse retains legal guardian status. It also comes down to things as simple as being allowed to visit your SO in the hospital, but that's not really where the dilemma is. The dilemma is that your spouse has precedence if you lack a will or living will, and if you're allowed multiple spouses it negates precedence and could cause legal debacles that don't help anybody. The battle between parents and spouses is bad enough regarding these issues but luckily in this country the spouse has precedence over the parents.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFwq_1YkBTw

NSA Used “Loophole” to Search Americans

Originally Posted by Original Poster

By those standards, why aren't people that only support heterosexual marriage just as hypocritical?

Nope. Hypocritical, but not as much. Traditional conservatism has been pretty consistent on what constitutes marriage for about 2000 years. They never argued to expand the definition to include some types but exclude others. It is only modern liberalism that seeks to both toss aside the traditional definition and at the same time exclude other definitions. This is a key distinction.

And let's be honest here. The only reasons liberals hate polygamy are twofold: 1) mormons do it, and mormons are religious, and religion is bad, and 2) polygamy is usually 1 man to several women, which offends the feminists.

Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if the government just got out of the marriage business entirely.

Homosexual and polygamous marriage should both be legal. Heterosexual marriage should be illegal because it is not what the Flying Spaghetti Monster intended.

Originally Posted by cmind

Nope. Hypocritical, but not as much. Traditional conservatism has been pretty consistent on what constitutes marriage for about 2000 years. They never argued to expand the definition to include some types but exclude others. It is only modern liberalism that seeks to both toss aside the traditional definition and at the same time exclude other definitions. This is a key distinction.

And let's be honest here. The only reasons liberals hate polygamy are twofold: 1) mormons do it, and mormons are religious, and religion is bad, and 2) polygamy is usually 1 man to several women, which offends the feminists.

Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if the government just got out of the marriage business entirely.

I didn't bother bringing this up, but a "gay marriage people" is defined by only one trait, they're in favor of gay marriage. You'd likely find more people in the anti-gay marriage side of the fence against polygamy than in the pro-gay marriage side, simply because the pro-gay marriage side includes libertarians like U.M.

And you can't take the government out of marriage because it's not legally meaningless, as I've already explained it directly relates to inheritance, life-support rights and legal guardian status. You need a binding contract between people to grant each other de facto rights for those situations. That's all marriage is, a contract. Traditional marriage existed for a specific purpose regarding land and inheritance, and it still holds that purpose but there's no reason to disqualify this inheritance simply because the couple is same sex. In fact, by simply extending marriage law to same sex couples it simplifies the matter of legal guardian status and everything else and prevents a lot of head aches. Granting multiple people the same de facto rights would only increase the head aches.

But none of that even comes close to the major point you've failed to address. You're essentially bitching at activists for refusing to take a mile with an inch, for not following through with the fallacy used to argue against them. You've still utterly failed to give a good reason why being pro gay marriage is more hypocritical, same sex couples have wanted to get married since as long as homosexuality has existed, their stance hasn't changed any more than anti-gay marriage. It's just that now you don't get lit on fire for promoting it.

Seriously, your argument is essentially the same as calling civil rights activists hypocrites for not wanting to extend voting rights to chimpanzees just because they wanted to grant that right to women and minorities.

9 out of 10 American Doctors agree: Don't become a doctor

I've been looking into this for a while, but it finally hit the Times last week: Why Only One Top Banker went to Jail for Financial Crisis

Pretty much seals the coffin on American Democracy.

What is modern democracy but a dictatorship, with parts of the population electing a group of oligarchs, which in turn appoint the people in charge of running the dictatorship?

This woman is facing 7 years for elbowing a cop. She claims he was sexually assaulting her.

Glenn Greenwald: how the NSA tampers with US-made internet routers | Books | The Guardian

So we're on the verge of over-turning Super PACs, the infrastructure is already in place for a mass exodus to google fiber if we can stop telecom lobbyists, John Oliver is putting massive pressure on the FCC to do the right thing, polls show despite NBC and CNN's best efforts to rig the public opinion, the majority of Americans side with Snowden.

It's easy to get drained by all the negativity, to see the country as slipping into a GOP envisioned dystopia with the DNC acting as a buffer to suck up all the resentment. It's difficult to remember that plenty of democrats, and a republican or two, are still doing their honest best for the country, that even if the biggest news and cable companies are in cahoots to form a monopoly and control every aspect of public perception in America, the dissenters are never far off the beaten path and people just aren't buying into this bullshit anymore.

Then of course, you hear this: Report: Honeybee Death Rate is Currently too High for Survival of the Species and remember that no matter what social justices we protect and tyrannies we stop, we're still completely fucked. Even Fox News has stopped bothering to deny global warming because at this point there's no more purpose in creating a wash, the ship is sinking no matter what. When Fox News drops a charade, it's never because the truth has proven irrefutable. Neither the company nor its audience has much concern over truth. It's because the charade has fulfilled its purpose. Whatever reason conservatives had for inhibiting the call to arms against global warming, they've likely succeeded.

Now for the plot twist! A freedom "known" fighter has emerged in Canada....go look at his facebook profile...it's all anti gov stuff and all pro-gun.

Moncton shooting: Finding, arresting suspect 'top priority' - New Brunswick - CBC News
This is all from someone who "had enough of gov" but i know media is going to say he is mentally deranged.

Then more control for guns in Canada....like we haven't had enough already??...makes no sense.
Moncton shooting: National Firearms Association blasts gun rules after deadly attack - Canada - CBC News

Originally Posted by hathor28

Now for the plot twist! A freedom "known" fighter has emerged in Canada....go look at his facebook profile...it's all anti gov stuff and all pro-gun.

Moncton shooting: Finding, arresting suspect 'top priority' - New Brunswick - CBC News
This is all from someone who "had enough of gov" but i know media is going to say he is mentally deranged.

Then more control for guns in Canada....like we haven't had enough already??...makes no sense.
Moncton shooting: National Firearms Association blasts gun rules after deadly attack - Canada - CBC News

The guy is a nutjob.

Being anti-gov is meaningless unless you have the intentions and the means to bring about genuine reform. This guy's just an armchair-revolutionary with no knowledge whatsoever about socio-political change and has done a great deal of damage to anyone who supports gun rights. This mental health issue is going to be sidetracked by knee-jerk reactions calling for more gun control (even though Canada does a fine job of it already), and pro-gun citizens are going to get caught in the same nonsense as the Americans have gotten themselves into. The only way to curb the damage done by this jackass is to remind people that mass shootings are a primarily a mental health issue.