Denying facts or at least the current theory of experts or minimising them for your own advantage is truly a pathetic way of making an argument. Wiping away the expertise of to such esteemed organisations with a brush off makes the rest of your comment suspect. Of course everyone is responsible for what they have personal control over but suggesting you aren't responsible for how your actions effect others is appalling. As is the suggestion that is constantly dragged out by anyone who's own habits and entertainments are detrimental to themselves and others; that many other risks to the publics health and well-being are legal so... So what? Laws are enacted (theoretically) to benefit the public good and suggesting that one is invalid due to another not being enacted is sophistry at it's worst.
That seems to be the issue at heart of many of these incidents. Officer fails to behave like robot and citizen objects to 'da man' suppressing him. There have been many occasions when cops have acted like totalitarian hard-asses or even criminal assholes but when every second citizen you meet is a douchebag who wants to obstruct you at your job, act like they are on an episode of cops, or just make a name for themselves and their youtube channel then even 'mostly' professional cops can get to the point of having 'had enough'. It doesn't by any means excuse the behaviour but it might just be a reason not to be screaming 'I know my rights' before they have been impinged. You might be the one who catches a usually professional person with a great deal of authority on a bad day.
"There are actually no studies to support your supposition. It's just one of those things that 'we all know,' right?"
Actually, the CDC says on their website:
There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
The Mayo Clinic says on their website:
The dangerous particles in secondhand smoke can linger in the air for hours or even longer. It isn't just the smoke that's a concern, though. The residue that clings to a smoker's hair and clothing, as well as cushions, carpeting and other goods — sometimes referred to as thirdhand smoke — also can pose risks, especially for children.
I support your right to smoke just so long as you don't do it where the smoke can be breathed by others, the particles from the smoke won't affect anyone for several hours and the particles from the smoke won't land on anything that someone with any susceptibility to those particles especially children might EVER come in contact with them.
That way your rights and everyone else's are covered. That's fair? Right?
I don't condone police misconduct under any circumstances but I also don't condone inconsiderate douche-bags who flaunt the laws meant to protect the innocent.
Really? Every facet of this story from the a member of the public reporting the photo, the polices action regarding that photo, Glyn's article reporting on the incident and one or two of the responses show an inclination toward exaggeration and a taste for dramatic fiction. If you want to be taken seriously leave out these fictional exaggerations.
The British police do not carry firearms however special squads may be armed for specific purposes. They did not enter the man's house guns blazing. The article was not written by Mike. Insane ranting about Mike's mental state claiming to be fictional just look stalkerish. All round FAIL here.
If only democracy actually worked this way. Accountability, oversight, government representing the citizenry and equality are supposed to be the cornerstone of a democracy. I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment but fail to see it practised rigorously in any democracy anywhere. The overwhelming attitude of politicians and government seems to be that they "know better" than the general populace and are therefore somehow entitled to behave in a manner that would not be acceptable in the "common man".
Oh the real irony is that the British sent 50000 convicts to North America (that's a third of the total sent to Australia) long before any arrived in Australia. They were the ones doing the work on plantations that a quarter million African slaves had to do in the century after the American Revolution. We Australians like to say we are descendant from convicts but the truth is most of us are the children of much later immigrants.
The real danger here is that the police could be putting peoples lives at risk. Some messages being sent may be "Hey come down there is a riot on" others may be "Hey don't come down there is a riot on". The supposition is that by denying everyone access to the service will aid the police but not disadvantage the public. I can think of numerous instances where this could cause more danger to the public. What about peaceful protests that are hijacked? How are organisers supposed to warn their members not to come because it is dangerous?
At last, someone who actually read and understood the article. If your first instinct is to leap to conclusions or imagine that 1 (admittedly tragic and horrendous) crime which represents an anomaly rather than a a trend is what you should base your broader opinions on then you are "overreacting" according to the article. It doesn't suggest this is wrong just that you should be aware and take a step back to consider the situation in a broader context before thinking you are able to make a rational decision or reach a logical conclusion. It's hard for everyone but seemingly impossible for some to accept that your instinctive reaction may not be a rational one.
Your arguments are increasingly illogical. I could use everything you have said to make the exact opposite point which is a sure sign you are arguing emotionally and dogmatically. All countries have laws that restrict access to dangerous items whether that means licensing, mandatory training or banning the items etc. Many of these laws have greatly reduced the danger to the general public. Why you equate sensible laws and effective policing with loss of freedom is beyond me. I have the freedom to walk on the side-walk because it's illegal for cars and trucks to drive there. I'm relatively safe although a madman or a heart attack could cause me to be hit by a car. Is it rational to imagine that statistically unlikely occurrences makes the law ineffective. Your replies are dogmatic and respond to some emotional triggers and not the content of my comments which began as a response to the irrational claims that a solution to the mass shootings at schools (and inferred to regard the Aurora shooting and others) is to allow students and the public the unrestricted freedom to carry firearms. Sweeping statements like "You can't have both freedom and security" are just plain stupid and mean nothing and say nothing. It's time to stop insisting that every topic has an evil answer or a righteous answer and nothing else. The whole world exists in a constant state of compromise which sometimes even works for the majority. The dogmatic who refuse to enter into an argument rationally are the problem (and seemingly the majority) if the article quoted is accurate.
I think you missed my point "A Guy" owning guns is massively different to arming the general public IN PUBLIC. I don't live in the US so it's not a cultural or emotional issue for me which it obviously is for most US citizens. From a practicality point of view, if you are suggesting that Reckruls suggestion that students and the general public be allowed to carry guns en masse in public and at school rather than attempt to prevent violent crime by other means then I would suggest that you are also exhibiting sign of the overreaction the article is describing. If you have no faith in trained professionals to attempt to address mental health and personality disorder issues but complete faith in untrained people to handle weapons daily then it would be pointless putting any suggestions forward as you won't be able to examine them rationally. The tiresome arguments regarding the uselessness of passing laws "because criminals won't obey them" completely disregards the fact that most of the mass tragedies discussed were not perpetrated by criminals.
Your analogy with the school shooting is a classic example of what the article is highlighting. Instead of a rational examination of how to prevent an individual from resorting to such a tragic act by early intervention via mental health, anti-bullying programs, sensible firearms laws etc. you overreact and assume that arming more individuals is somehow going to prevent deaths. A proper risk analysis on your part would enable you to realise that the likelihood of any unarmed student being shot is extremely low while arming en-masse would seem to be a risky proposition especially when it comes to the young and untrained. Everyday in the US approximately 5 children are injured by accidental handgun shootings. The reality is that firearms are too dangerous for untrained individuals to handle let alone carry to school or the movie theatre on the incredibly small chance that someone is going to chose that moment to commit mass murder. That is the reality, unfortunately, as the article states, our instincts tells us to be scared and armed against this most unlikely outcome.
"I'll plead guilty to being an asshole- at times. But not a troll. BTW, consistent with my earlier admission; you've misspelled "palooka"."
This is why you are a troll. You imagine you have a clue and then "assume" which, contrary to the adage, only makes an ass out of you. There could be many reasons why someone would misspell a word, inability to spell (your natural presumption), irony, private joke, necessity, etc. The spelling is deliberate however it is irrelevant. Unlike you I only judge you by your actions and words here.
It's hilarious when people think they have some inalienable right to have their comments replied to instantly, expeditiously or at all. It's even more laughable when they expect insults and demands will garner them a response. If it looks like an asshole, acts like an asshole, posts like an asshole then it's a troll.
I get the feeling they are building up to a situation where someone in the corporation has sent back the anti-corporation terrorists in order to undo the future. That is why they are making it hard to read who are the real bad guys. On top of that in the real world one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter while one man's corporate overlord is another man's pay-packet. Her husband and his boss have something to do with it.
>Listening to ad or another part of service you don't like is not a form of payment, if service provider financially gains from it.
And as for BBC Radio if what you said is true, it the exception, not the rule. When people are listen most other radio stations they don't first buy a license to listen to that, they just turn the radio on and change to station they want to listen."
This may well be a US-centric forum but the arrogance of an argument that dismisses the rest of the world is mind blowing. IP/Copyright/File Sharing/Art as Business are global issues(obviously) and the way they are legislated, understood and accessed vary greatly worldwide.
Public broadcasting is very common throughout the world and at the most basic level is payed for by the taxpayer or subscribers. Dismissing a model that is used daily by millions (if not billions) of people simply because it is not a model favoured in your neighbourhood is typical of the US-centric nature of the discussion and the politics of the issues. Get your head out of the sand and explore the topic from a broader perspective and you just might be able to put together some comments worth reading.
The only truths that seem to stand apart from all the opinion are that:
- The music industry representatives (who represent the companies who sell music) want to stop or curtail the sharing of music files unless they get a cut.
- The current and recent methods to accomplish this revolve around technology (like DRM and chasing online file sharers) and legislation to block access to file sharing online.
- It isn't working.
I have opinions on the issues but no solutions. I just know that (like ebooks) the harder the "Industry" makes it for me to obtain, access and consume their product the more likely I am to turn to easier alternatives that they don't make a profit from. Most people who file-share easily justify it to themselves so pulling the moral card is a complete waste of time. Logically, those seeking income from the consumption of music need to figure out how to make it accessible and gain a financial benefit for themselves. The sooner they get to it the better.