I'd need to see exactly what was said in order to make a full judgment.  But let's be honest here, if anyone truly wanted someone else dead, they'd not draw attention to themselves; this sounds more like a strongly expressed opinion than an actual plot to kill Donald Trump.  Given the state's track record with overreacting to Facebook posts--IIRC one kid got jailed just for rap lyrics: http://www.wired.com/2013/06/teen-jailed-for-terror-rap/ --it's highly probable that it's doing the same thing here again.

Personally, I'd just stay off Facebook and communicate more privately.

That's not the cause of gun control law, it's the cause of cultural homogeny.  America is, shall we say, much more 'multicultural' than Japan or South Korea is, which leads to a greater amount of violence as these cultures, naturally, do not get along (and some are just plain more violent than others, I'm sure I don't need to mention which ones specifically, just look at the crime rates between each of these cultures.)  Take that out of the equation, make America as monocultural as Japan and South Korea is, and you'll notice the crime rate plummet, which includes the rate of mass killings.  Only true difference between these nations (Japan, SK, China, NK) is that their mass killings occur usually with stabbings, what I presume is the 2nd best thing next to guns to injure others.  So clearly the issue does not rest with guns, even in these societies where everyone ought to get along with so much in common, they still fail to.  So I guess if you really would rather be stabbed to death than shot, banning guns might help you out, but I sincerely feel the distinction is minute.  That's not to mention the power shift between those allowed to have guns--usually only those in the oligarchy--and those regular folks who have no sway over what is and is not acceptable for gun ownership.  If you feel this won't be abused for the decider's benefit, it is due to your naiveté towards power games.

And then there's the fact that, in the case of someone overpowering me to stab me (rather than shooting me), I am at a severe disadvantage since I'm not as strong as most people, and this is the case for many.  Firearms heavily level the playing field here.

Further, Europe has far more stricter gun laws in general than America does, and yet has mass killings on par with, if not greater than, America.  Also notice that Europe is also multicultural.  I hope the pattern is becoming clear to you.

It's identical to computer control, to limit who can have access to a computer and who can't, to prevent hackers from hacking and to prevent pedophiles from sharing CP etc.  Is the computer the problem?  No, it just facilitates action, it is neutral.  I can make this argument for just about anything.  What about encryption control?  What if some bad guys use encryption to hide their plots?  The harm in banning or controlling such far outweighs the benefit.  And hackers would still get their computers, and encryption is simple enough to do on your own anyway so that'd be hilarious to attempt to control.

Let's say that you have never used a computer in your life.  You feel that life is perfectly fine without computers.  You notice that computers are often used to do terrible things, and have been used to ruin many people's lives daily.  The odds of you supporting computer control skyrocket.  However, because--chances are--you do use computers regularly, you would feel personally infringed upon to have this right to computers tampered with.  You are far less likely to support such "Orwellian" measures, because you would personally feel the negative effects of that control.  What right does the government have to tell me whether I can use my PC, my laptop, my smart phone, my gaming console?  And I can guarantee you, if you tried using firearms, if you got comfortable with their presence, if you learned how to personally control them, you would not project your own feelings of being out-of-control with firearms onto a political agenda.  You feel the need for others to control firearms because you do not feel you have any control of them, and that makes them very scary.  You should learn how to use guns, your mind will change very quickly.

Void of that, I say we just kill them.  One gun, one bullet to the brain, a tarp underneath for easy cleanup; kill a bunch of them at once and put them in a mass grave, rather than individual graves, for even more savings.  Put the whole thing on TV and charge advertisers a hefty fee, make all the money back and even profit.  Plus we get rid of shitty people we don't want to take care of.  With the profits made, you could even reinvest in more spectacular and creative ways of killing them; put them in a ring and make them fight out for delaying their demise until the next round of killing.  Make even more money from the show as more eyeballs = more advertisement views = more ad revenue.

The correct answer is "hell fucking no"

Anyone who disagrees is either:

A.) Evil
B.) Doesn't know anything about Islam, i.e. ignorant

Alas, I repeat myself...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Just a liiiiiiittle bit of introspection will do you wonders.

End game for printing money; Gresham's law sets in, everyone saves the "good" money and gets rid of the "bad" (in this case, the one which lost just about all its value), nobody wants the "bad" money anymore since it buys virtually nothing even at large amounts.  Same thing happened in Germany last century, as well as other places.  Leads to instability, to put it lightly; loss of faith in the bloodline of the nation is a loss of faith in the nation itself.

Printing dollars works for a little while.  Then it doesn't work at all.  And by that I mean, over a long-term period, it doesn't work at all, as it leads to an overall loss.  Lots of people get affected by this transfer from the individual to the collective (in this case the state), particularly those who don't take interest in these matters.  Poverty skyrockets, as well as crime, and so forth; just imagine a situation where your money doesn't buy you anything and businesses (the organized problem-solvers) flee; it's pretty severe.  In the end it manages to concentrate a large portion of wealth into the central planners, which acts similarly to an addictive drug preventing them from stopping that which is harmful to all.  You're pretty much left with a dictatorship, e.g. Nazi Germany, which is little more than the flames waving over the nation as it burns down to embers (whereupon it can start over.)

Borrowing can help retain the value of the national currency, which doesn't have the same effect of watering down the printed currency since Joe Schmoe keeps his purchasing power (at least more of it than he would've with printing money alone), but you are still expected to pay back what you owe at some point down the line.  Once the people of the borrowed-from nation start to buckle under some sort of economic turmoil and expect back what's rightfully theirs (plus interest), conflict ensues (esp. if the borrowing nation cannot pay back at all): so long stability and prosperity.  In the case of two ~equally strong nations, this can incite war; in the case of one nation being considerably stronger than the other, this can cause the weaker state to become subjugate to the stronger state (the EU/Germany and Greece being one such example.)  It's even possible for this conflict to occur within the nation itself, e.g. the nation's constituents and its own banks, and between businesses.  It's possible between any two organizations.

Neither of them are preferable, IMO.  It's better to just not spend more than what you have; it's better to have savings just in case, rather than borrowing or printing every time something goes wrong--imagine living that type of lifestyle in one's own household, it becomes apparent quick why it doesn't work out.  But so long as one nation has the opportunity and willingness to get an early and ephemeral lead of power and influence over the other nations, it's a trend that will likely continue, for other nations must follow suit lest they be left to buckle under the influence of another.  So everyone's in this nasty spiral of borrow and print to spend spend spend, gotta beat the other guys.

Thank you

Correlation != causation

Silly rabbit

Thank you   Just takes lots and lots of practice

Got a score of 17...so about average.  I imagine I could manipulate the test into giving me a high score though.  I'll try it:


Looks like I understand the autist mind fairly well

The trouble as I see it is in defining what counts as immaturity; technically anything an adult does counts as mature behavior as adults are by definition mature.  So adults can never be more or less mature as they set the literal bar as to what consists of mature behavior.  If adults often argue online, then it can be considered a mature act for a child to imitate this adult behavior.  It can also be viewed as the adult exhibiting childlike behavior.  Literally anything a child does can be defined as immature when applied to adults, and vice versa.  Let me show you:

Children play sports.  Ergo adults who play sports are immature.
Adults drink alcohol.  Ergo children who drink alcohol are mature.
Children go to school.  Ergo adults who go to school are immature.
Adults have sex.  Ergo children who have sex are mature.
Children draw.  Ergo adults who draw are immature.
Adults use swear words.  Ergo children who use swear words are mature.
Children play video games.  Ergo adults who play video games are immature.
Adults play video games.  Ergo children who play video games are mature.

You can go on forever with any example of anything a child does and consider it to be immature for adult behavior.  I believe you need to further contemplate what it is you're noticing in these people that you dislike so much.  Dismissing them as being immature is meaningless.  The topic question cannot be answered; even considering a static standard for mature behavior, we don't really have data on the maturity of all the world's population over time to come to the conclusion that adults are indeed straying from this standard; I think you are operating from a limited perspective, as are we all, but you have let your imagination run a little too wild here.  Now, if you mean intelligence rather than maturity, then it's a little clearer as to why people seem to act so stupidly compared to the past...but that's a whole different matter.

A life without technology is a life without the capacity to produce technology; in other words you'd effectively be like any other animal.  So there's no point in worrying about it, you wouldn't even have the mental faculties to contemplate it given the scenario were true.

It would essentially involve scavenging for food and water, and hoping that no stronger animals--of which there may be plenty, as you have no technology to defend yourself with--come to make a meal out of you.  Agriculture, controlled fire, even a measly rock tied to a stick: all forms of technology that you would have to go without.  Forget computers and telecommunication, those would've never been created in the first place.  Your entire existence would be "find food, find water, find nice climate", and if none were available, you'd migrate.  Can't bare cold weather, no fur and no clothes (another form of technology,) so you'd have to move where the weather was nice, like birds.  Except you'd have to leg it: no wings, no wheels.  Maybe you get lucky and find an area which is nice all year round, lots of water, lots of food.  So more humans start populating these areas, start coming in from other places on the planet, crowd it up.  They eat and they eat, multiplying the population, until all the food is gone.  With the food shortage comes starvation; your once mostly docile neighbors turn on you and eat you, or you eat them, or you migrate again and hope to find the ideal conditions once more, perhaps starving along the way, or dying from dehydration (can't take the water with you, containers don't form naturally, nor would you be smart enough to find any container-like object to use to carry with you.)  Maybe you wind up having to eat one of your kids to make the trip, assuming you bred; animals do it all the time.

Or maybe we're talking about a situation where humans had the capacity to implement technology but the world was in such extremely awful condition that nobody could actually use any of it, maybe like everyone's slowly dying from nuclear radiation.  That'd be pretty nasty too.  But it's a very simple feat to imagine a world without technology, just take a look at how animals live out in the wild.  That'd be you: just another dumb, barely sentient creature trying to survive and procreate, largely unaware of the nature of your own existence, living off pure primal instinct.

Anyway I prefer the time line where humans have technology.  The alternatives sound absolutely awful.

Thank you

Bad trust rating, no escrow, barely any savings involved, terrible English, rude as hell

It has SCAM written all over it.

Only 2D I'm afraid

I'm pretty sure Beliathon was the guy who posted the thread about cutting off his ability to have children (forgive me if I'm wrong.)  I wouldn't listen to the decisions of a man who has no stake in the future, i.e. someone who has no intention of having children.  Someone whose genes are so poor as to have no desire of spreading is bound for extinction, and will take everyone else with them if they follow.  Just look at Merkel's decision-making ability, she's committing national suicide, but she doesn't give a shit, her genes aren't going anywhere anyway.


You are correct, it is a deterrent.  It works the same way as cactus spines, skunk spray, bellows, guns, et al: it deters enemies from bringing harm, except in this case it's just on a very large scale, it's only meant to deter equally large entities i.e. other nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction


Would you want to bite into these guys?

Something tells me you're not very critical about the sources you're choosing to believe.  Please link where you picked this up from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

OP: are you Korean or Hawaiian?  You can only choose one.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naive


Democrats have zero intention of helping the needy; their only purpose is to make more needy people, which increases their power.  Whether this is done by crippling the young from being able to function properly in the market, to importing needy people from 3rd world countries into the nation, to paying people off to do nothing with their lives and live off the well being of others (which makes it harder for others to survive), all that matters is that everyone is helpless so that democrats (well, more like progressives I guess) are necessary to care for them.  If you truly want to help the needy, you would reject them, and encourage an environment where the needy can help themselves, which would mean lifting all the expensive restrictions on the poor which stops them from forming their own businesses, thereby becoming self-reliant.

Please, don't support an institution which seeks to turn the nation into the pets of the ruling classes.