When did the ideas of protecting, rather than harming, and even being courteous to those weaker than yourself become worthy of scorn, exactly?
Chivalry have never worked that way. Ever. If it did, it wouldn't be an idea worthy of scorn.
As for the rest of your BS, it's BS. The legal consequences of violence limit the use of violence in our society to asshole moves that are worth the consequences, and would be valuable for that alone, if that we lived in a world where everyone is equally capable of asshole-answering violence.
In the real world, however, we're not all big, able-bodied, well-trained, or men, which are all impediments to the idea of training politeness into the public with physical violence.
Open carry is a better asshole-equalizer, because then he never opens his mouth in the first place, and the smallest old lady in a wheelchair can carry one.
Personally, I believe that the world would be a much nicer place to live in if the right to free speech came linked with the right to get smacked in the mouth for being an asshole.
There's a politician in Georgia who agrees with you.
I thought I was mostly saying pick a different group of people...
Like the people with bad knees, MS, etc. that can't be seen? You know, the folks I already used as an example in the original post?
...who are more into whining about how unfair life is to be the example.
Who said anything about whining, or unfairness?
Vets deserve respect and aren't opposed to a bit of sympathy now and then but we've little use for pity.
Wait. Are you saying that criticizing an idea to publicly shame people with invisible disabilities is akin to pitying them? Or that not publicly shaming them is somehow pity? Really?
You seem a little hypersensitive to the idea of someone feeling sorry for you, but I can assure you that not all vets feel that way. Some of them are just regular folks who don't get bent out of shape if someone holds the door for them or decides not to publicly shame them for using an elevator.
As for superhuman, no, just on the upper end of the curve.
Marines might be, sure. I'd buy that hypothesis. But my comment wasn't about Marines. It was about people with invisible disabilities.
And Marines with disabilities generally have impediments that might reduce their place on that curve. You know, that's the thing that we call a disability.
That you thought I meant otherwise either means you mistook hyperbole for a straight statement or you're further back on the curve than you believe.
Wait, you used an exaggerated statement and then he used one, but now you're criticizing his exaggeration? Huh.
You know, usually your comments are much more logical than this. Are you having an off day?
I'd have more sympathy for disabled vets on this...
Did you miss that part where I used one disabled vet as an example of an entire segment of our population with invisible handicaps?
I'm pretty sure that your average MS sufferer can't 'casually tie a knot' in any body part, much less a spine. Do you know how strong a spine is?
...your husband took a hell of a lot worse than a few dirty looks and snide comments just in boot camp, this kind of stuff should barely be noticed.
Because boot camp is like real life? Because the people you signed up to protect (civilians) are somehow the same as the people who signed up to teach you to protect them (drill sergeants)?
That's... not a good argument.
...he's a Marine; that means even were he in a wheelchair he'd be able to casually tie a knot in the spine of anyone asshole enough to say anything.
I already addressed the first huge hole in your comment; namely, that vets aren't the only people with invisible disabilities. However, you're completely missing the other huge, glaring hole.
Marines are people. You know, as opposed to superheroes with the ability to rip out spines while making a hilarious smart-ass remark?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's cool to rip on disabled vets.
What are you saying, exactly?
I'm just saying that we're absolutely tough enough to take it and almost certainly capable of doing something about it should we decide not to.
And everyone else can just suffer?
Sensitivity to our feelings is not generally high on our list of things we want out of life, in my experience anyway.
In my experience, it's not high on the list of things vets get but it certainly seems like something that you guys wish for.
If the assumptions aren't in line with what people actually do, then they're neither realistic nor useful. At that point, who cares about their assumptions?
However, if you are in fact an able-bodied human being, who is using the elevator out of nothing but sheer laziness, perhaps public shame will force you to reconsider your choice. And if you're the only one on the elevator, press away!
However, if you look like an able-bodied human being, but are in fact using the elevator for a perfectly valid physical reason, you will be forced to choose between your body's needs and public shame/judgment. Great idea, Arbesman!
Or not. My husband is a disabled veteran of the USMC and has a busted hip and ankle. To strangers, he looks perfectly healthy. Right now, in real life, he gets assholes glaring at him and making comments whenever he uses handicap accommodations, and even sometimes when he has his cane. I would hate to see how bad it would be if that sort of behavior was more acceptable.
And this isn't just about veterans. I mean, tons of people have MS, bad knees, etc. that can't be seen. You know, like Arbesman himself, who obviously has issues that we can't see that cause him to act like a complete idiot.
The point would be to order Hotz to minimize the damage that he's caused as best he can.
Except that minimization isn't possible. At all. Any effort on his part to retrieve even his own posts is going to result in more publicity of this code, not less.
Thus showing that this judge, like many judges, does not understand the Internet.
None of those judgments could supersede the Supreme Court.
In addition to my comment below (which explains that I wasn't commenting on the legality of the infringement), I'd like to add that something like a dozen states have laws that specifically prohibit roadblock-type searches.
"...and I have time, I'd be happy to point you to Supreme Court language to that effect."
Whew! That was the point of my statement flying over your head.
My response to Chris was about legal actions that infringe on our Constitutional rights, not about illegal actions that infringe on our Constitutional rights. In other words, I stated that it was an infringement, not that it was illegal.
I'm aware of the cases that reference this issue, but I'm also aware that most of them acknowledge the very same Constitutional infringement that I mentioned, with the caveat that the infringement is less important than the state's interest in these matters.
On the post: Should Elevators Shame Us Into Taking The Stairs?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Chivalry have never worked that way. Ever. If it did, it wouldn't be an idea worthy of scorn.
As for the rest of your BS, it's BS. The legal consequences of violence limit the use of violence in our society to asshole moves that are worth the consequences, and would be valuable for that alone, if that we lived in a world where everyone is equally capable of asshole-answering violence.
In the real world, however, we're not all big, able-bodied, well-trained, or men, which are all impediments to the idea of training politeness into the public with physical violence.
Open carry is a better asshole-equalizer, because then he never opens his mouth in the first place, and the smallest old lady in a wheelchair can carry one.
On the post: Should Elevators Shame Us Into Taking The Stairs?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's a politician in Georgia who agrees with you.
On the post: Should Elevators Shame Us Into Taking The Stairs?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like the people with bad knees, MS, etc. that can't be seen? You know, the folks I already used as an example in the original post?
...who are more into whining about how unfair life is to be the example.
Who said anything about whining, or unfairness?
Vets deserve respect and aren't opposed to a bit of sympathy now and then but we've little use for pity.
Wait. Are you saying that criticizing an idea to publicly shame people with invisible disabilities is akin to pitying them? Or that not publicly shaming them is somehow pity? Really?
You seem a little hypersensitive to the idea of someone feeling sorry for you, but I can assure you that not all vets feel that way. Some of them are just regular folks who don't get bent out of shape if someone holds the door for them or decides not to publicly shame them for using an elevator.
As for superhuman, no, just on the upper end of the curve.
Marines might be, sure. I'd buy that hypothesis. But my comment wasn't about Marines. It was about people with invisible disabilities.
And Marines with disabilities generally have impediments that might reduce their place on that curve. You know, that's the thing that we call a disability.
That you thought I meant otherwise either means you mistook hyperbole for a straight statement or you're further back on the curve than you believe.
Wait, you used an exaggerated statement and then he used one, but now you're criticizing his exaggeration? Huh.
You know, usually your comments are much more logical than this. Are you having an off day?
On the post: Should Elevators Shame Us Into Taking The Stairs?
Re: Re:
Did you miss that part where I used one disabled vet as an example of an entire segment of our population with invisible handicaps?
I'm pretty sure that your average MS sufferer can't 'casually tie a knot' in any body part, much less a spine. Do you know how strong a spine is?
...your husband took a hell of a lot worse than a few dirty looks and snide comments just in boot camp, this kind of stuff should barely be noticed.
Because boot camp is like real life? Because the people you signed up to protect (civilians) are somehow the same as the people who signed up to teach you to protect them (drill sergeants)?
That's... not a good argument.
...he's a Marine; that means even were he in a wheelchair he'd be able to casually tie a knot in the spine of anyone asshole enough to say anything.
I already addressed the first huge hole in your comment; namely, that vets aren't the only people with invisible disabilities. However, you're completely missing the other huge, glaring hole.
Marines are people. You know, as opposed to superheroes with the ability to rip out spines while making a hilarious smart-ass remark?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's cool to rip on disabled vets.
What are you saying, exactly?
I'm just saying that we're absolutely tough enough to take it and almost certainly capable of doing something about it should we decide not to.
And everyone else can just suffer?
Sensitivity to our feelings is not generally high on our list of things we want out of life, in my experience anyway.
In my experience, it's not high on the list of things vets get but it certainly seems like something that you guys wish for.
On the post: Should Elevators Shame Us Into Taking The Stairs?
Re:
If the assumptions aren't in line with what people actually do, then they're neither realistic nor useful. At that point, who cares about their assumptions?
On the post: Should Elevators Shame Us Into Taking The Stairs?
However, if you look like an able-bodied human being, but are in fact using the elevator for a perfectly valid physical reason, you will be forced to choose between your body's needs and public shame/judgment. Great idea, Arbesman!
Or not. My husband is a disabled veteran of the USMC and has a busted hip and ankle. To strangers, he looks perfectly healthy. Right now, in real life, he gets assholes glaring at him and making comments whenever he uses handicap accommodations, and even sometimes when he has his cane. I would hate to see how bad it would be if that sort of behavior was more acceptable.
And this isn't just about veterans. I mean, tons of people have MS, bad knees, etc. that can't be seen. You know, like Arbesman himself, who obviously has issues that we can't see that cause him to act like a complete idiot.
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re: Re:
Although... Bapple?
On the post: FiveFingers Blocks Right Finger -- Just Asking For Middle One
Also, it makes the people who want to 'steal' the photos laugh. Hard.
On the post: The Awkwardness Of Cutting Out The Middleman
Re:
Because you can do it in between concerts? You know, the concerts on the tour that she was already on?
Just another way of whoring time for cash outside of "the system".
Yes, just as $20,000 are a way of whoring for cash within the system.
Except that the clients at the smaller gig have a better time.
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except that minimization isn't possible. At all. Any effort on his part to retrieve even his own posts is going to result in more publicity of this code, not less.
Thus showing that this judge, like many judges, does not understand the Internet.
Which is the point.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week
Re:
On the post: Government Putting Quite A Lot Of Effort Into Tracking Down 'Anonymous'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
^^That was the point of your comment flying over my head. :P
On the post: Government Putting Quite A Lot Of Effort Into Tracking Down 'Anonymous'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
your all in the masnick's butt and diont know any thing about this
Which is the kind of thing that our trolls like to say.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Just So Long As They Don’t Take Away The Second Amendment...
Clearly, the Third Amendment is the only one that matters.
On the post: Government Putting Quite A Lot Of Effort Into Tracking Down 'Anonymous'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
None of those judgments could supersede the Supreme Court.
In addition to my comment below (which explains that I wasn't commenting on the legality of the infringement), I'd like to add that something like a dozen states have laws that specifically prohibit roadblock-type searches.
On the post: Government Putting Quite A Lot Of Effort Into Tracking Down 'Anonymous'
Re:
On the post: Government Putting Quite A Lot Of Effort Into Tracking Down 'Anonymous'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sources? I'd like to see them.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whew! That was the point of my statement flying over your head.
My response to Chris was about legal actions that infringe on our Constitutional rights, not about illegal actions that infringe on our Constitutional rights. In other words, I stated that it was an infringement, not that it was illegal.
I'm aware of the cases that reference this issue, but I'm also aware that most of them acknowledge the very same Constitutional infringement that I mentioned, with the caveat that the infringement is less important than the state's interest in these matters.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that's not the case with these searches, AJ.
Next >>