Non-IT News Thread
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
That's no choice. Everybody would want their family in no danger at all. But that is also unrealistic. Sure, there are places with more and less (and much more and much less) danger levels (and varying kinds of danger), but there is no such thing as no danger at all.
Sure. But that leads to the next question...
Would you rather:
- Have your family be in more danger but feel more in control?
- Have your family be in less danger but feel helpless?
Which matters more, the feeling of control or the safety of the family? Most people will choose the feeling of control when presented with it without the clear statement of risk.
Unless there are extrime differences in the statement of risk, you are right. All things being equal, I would choose more control every time. Being hopeless is not a good place to be. I've seen entirely too many people destroyed by that feeling.
-
@dafyre said:
Unless there are extrime differences in the statement of risk, you are right. All things being equal, I would choose more control every time. Being hopeless is not a good place to be. I've seen entirely too many people destroyed by that feeling.
See that is where we are completely different. I would never willingly put the lives of my kids at risk for any level of feeling more in control. Even if the difference was tiny. Whatever it takes to keep them safe.
Now, in the moment, of course irrationality takes over. But having time to think clearly about how to keep them safe, I choose safety over a false sense of security.
-
@dafyre said:
All things being equal, I would choose more control every time.
All things being equal other than it puts your family at risk, you understand. ALL sense of control here comes at the risk to your family.
All things being equal, I would take my family's safety as the first thing. Nothing else comes close in importance.
-
@dafyre said:
I've seen entirely too many people destroyed by that feeling.
I'd take that mental anguish that I had lost control over the actual loss of the family any day.
-
I totally appreciate the desire to be in control, its an overwhelming feeling. Loss of control makes people go into a full panic, it's a terrible feeling. The amygdala takes over and we become drones.
-
-
This thread rapidly moved up the "all time more popular threads" list today!
-
We did good, lol.
-
Yeah we did, made for a busy posting day (although viewing traffic is down) that we've had a few of this month. I expect to see good posting numbers at the month end.
-
Taiwan: Boy Trips and Tears Hole in $1.5 Million Paolo Porpora Painting
Video footage shows the 12-year-old boy holding a drink and falling into the 350-year-old “Flowers” painting, leaving a hole the size of a fist, exhibition organizers said.
-
Rémy Martin: Woman at Beijing Airport Reportedly Chugs Bottle of Cognac That Wasn't Allowed on Flight
When airline security wouldn't let the woman bring an expensive bottle of cognac on a flight from Beijing to Wenzhou, she drank it instead of throwing it out, Raycom News Network reports.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Taiwan: Boy Trips and Tears Hole in $1.5 Million Paolo Porpora Painting
Video footage shows the 12-year-old boy holding a drink and falling into the 350-year-old “Flowers” painting, leaving a hole the size of a fist, exhibition organizers said.
Exactly why children shouldn't be allowed near fine art... no respect for history and culture.
-
Did I see that he was carrying a drink or food at the time?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I understand what you are saying here - by not having guns, the crazies don't have an 'easy' access to a mass destruction device, but as Jarad just pointed out, if you take away the guns.. the crazies will just find another weapon to use. Frankly, I'd be surprised if we didn't see IEDs become a much bigger thing for the crazies.
Yes, but as the results show, having lesser weapons makes things safer for everyone. Yes now they use knives instead of guns, but that makes the police more effective, makes crowds more effective (easier to overpower a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun) and statistically just works.
Sure safer, but how much safer 0.0001% safer - I can honestly say I don't care about that percentage. I'd rather keep the danger and my weapons.
-
@RojoLoco said:
Exactly why no one should be allowed near fine art
-
@MattSpeller said:
@Dashrender Real, intelligent background checks.
training courses
storage rules
... to get us started
Personally the background checks in my opinion would be against the 2nd amendment - but I completely understand why you want them.
Unless training courses are completely free, you're now using finance to control who does and does not have access to legal weapons
Storage rules - unless you're going to start checking people's home this one is pointless except for after the fact, and I'm pretty sure you'll get child endangerment punishment if your kid shoots them self with your weapons. Outside of that, uh no!Next??
-
@Dashrender said:
Sure safer, but how much safer 0.0001% safer - I can honestly say I don't care about that percentage. I'd rather keep the danger and my weapons.
Why? What's the value to the weapons if it comes at the cost of human life?
-
@Dashrender said:
Sure safer, but how much safer 0.0001% safer - I can honestly say I don't care about that percentage. I'd rather keep the danger and my weapons.
It's a LOT safer.
Here is a quote worth thinking about: "With less than 5% of the world's population, the United States is home to roughly 35–50 per cent of the world's civilian-owned guns, heavily skewing the global geography of firearms and any relative comparison"
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
It's not trivially safer. It's dramatically safer.
-
@Dashrender said:
Personally the background checks in my opinion would be against the 2nd amendment - but I completely understand why you want them.
And the more something is against the second amendment, the more it sounds like a good idea. The second amendment puts us at risk.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I don't personally subscribe to the personal self defense theory (OK maybe I do a little), but really I subscribe more to the not allowing the government to take total control and in that vain, the citizens should have access to the same weapons as the government. Now that doesn't mean that I think people should be walking around town with handgranades or SAWs.
I can appreciate the logic but there are some issues with that theory.... like people could never afford them so they are inaccessible from financial reasons alone, this makes people so dangerous that the police and military can do nothing to protect you, those weapons take specialized training to use, etc.
I think that the fear of military takeover is problematic. Not that it could never happen, but it is very unlikely and causing real world problems in the hopes of avoiding it is a bad way to go.
When these laws were written, soldiers carried muskets and there was no police force. The world is a very different place. We don't hunt with muskets, people are not already armed otherwise and the military use weapons that the public could never afford or understand how to use. And muskets were not deadly to a crowd. A man with a musket could not kill lots of unarmed people, only likely one or two at most. And even the person he shot could often take him out before he had time to reload.
The world is a different place. The BoR was never intended to allow what it has allowed.
You make great points - but just look at the issues in Iran. Recently (I'm not sure how recently) the public looked to be trying to overthrow their government, but since they had no weapons, the police and military mowed the crowd down and subdued them before they could remove the government they appeared to despise. That is exactly what the BoR wanted it's people to be able to do - and frankly I think the citizens wouldn't stand a chance in having that happen today if even people felt it was warranted.
