zapatos

Why not?

I agree. This is a waste of time. And it is not fun or enlightening anymore, at least for me.

That is your assumption. For all you know I've purchased and destroyed an armory worth of weapons.

Well, it would be a sign that you don't always think only your ideas are valid, and it would get a gun out of circulation, and it would be something concrete instead of just talking about it, and it could save a life, and maybe it would prompt others to do the same. On the other hand, I am the one who brought it up so perhaps it is best you trivialize and ignore the suggestion. As it turns out the only real suggestion you made was something that doesn't affect you anyway since you don't shoot. When you don't drive a car anymore, perhaps it will be time to suggest that we all give up our cars too, to fight global warming.

I am aware of what I called for, but thanks for reminding me. No it would not. If you purchase from an individual (not a dealer) and they do not replace it, it will not provide the gun industry with more money. Frankly I'm shocked that you feel taking guns out of people's hands is argumentative nonsense. Police departments buy and destroy guns all the time. The guy in the video took a gun out of people's hands and you called it "Excellent". Yet when I propose we take it upon ourselves to do something concrete and not just leave it up to others, you dismiss the idea as nonsense. I wonder why that is.

Forgive me, but that sounds a lot like "Talking about what one would do if non-existing conditions existed almost always is just cover for doing nothing." As I said, you should buy it from an individual, not a dealer. Preferably an individual who will not replace it. Shoot, buy it from some old lady who has one that used to belong to her dead husband. We need to stop making excuses for why things cannot get done, and find ways to do them.

I think individual action is a great idea. I would call on everyone here to purchase a gun from an individual (not a dealer) and cut the gun in half. That would remove guns from circulation and ensure people here are ready to take action and not just present empty words. Don't use conversation on this site about changes that are unlikely to happen as cover for doing nothing.

The mother gave consent. When it comes to the actions or words of certain private citizens, it is unreasonable to refer to the entire population as if they all share those actions or words.

Technically it was not without consent. Her mother said "you are going to marry him" and like a dutiful 11 year old she said "yes mother". No one knew about the rape except the families and the church leaders. This happened in the past and is just now coming to light as the girl recounts the story of what happened to her as a child. One of the reasons some object to raising the marriage age is because it will result in more out of wedlock births. Yes, in many ways we are still in 12th century Europe with respect to the power and influence of the church. But I digress and will now cease.

Yes, it is. It's like having brother who pisses in public and stares at women's breasts. Totally embarrassing but you are stuck with him.

Looks like the article was correct, although presented so that it appeared in the worst possible light (as opposed to the miserable light it actually was). The rapist and victim were members of a church, and after consultations with the church, primarily the mother and the church decided that to avoid scandal (LOL!) they would have them marry. The girl really had no concept of what she was getting into, and the first attempt to get a marriage license was rejected, although some other troglodyte public servant was more than happy to allow the marriage. This was in Florida, home of the most recent school shooting and some pretty archaic laws.

Canada needs to quit molesting children.

Then why do you keep referring to the whole country as having a single attitude or trait? You either think all Americans need to get over themselves, or you don't mind lumping the ones who do not have bad traits in with those who do have bad traits, simply based on their country of origin. You know, like bigots do. Would you find it offensive if I suggested Canada was a lawless country simply because some Canadians are lawless? You keep bitching that I am misrepresenting your attitudes, but you keep displaying the same attitudes over and over. As I said before, you just don't seem to have any understanding of what people might find offensive.

You realize "America" is not a person, right? That we are composed of many different people with many different views? And that making generalizations about a group of people can be considered bad form? Yes, that was a pretty good example, although I'm sure the conservatives here would not frame it that way.

dimreepr -- Yes, it was explicitly stated. I also couldn't understand how it could be quantifiable and thus felt it sounded more like a baseless accusation. I've since been criticized for thinking that.

That's what I thought, which is why I asked for some examples of America not following another country's lead, lest they appear weak, which you declined to provide.

That's scary. You think planes in the UK would be allowed to keep flying if they were not safe?

IMO it is Iran who is acting unethical by putting a plane in the air that they cannot properly maintain. Other countries are under no obligation to supply non-humanitarian goods.

That seems misleading to me. Why should an up vote go into your reputation total but not a down vote? Aren't both equally representative of what others think of your posts? EDIT: Not to mention the fact that I might look at someone's profile and think they are reasonable based on their reputation of 100, not realizing that they have 400 down votes spread out amongst many threads.

I guess I'd rather keep it. In the forums like Politics and Religion it is often used just to say "I disagree", or "I think you are a dope", and it is not all that critical. But on the science threads it more often means "that is false and misleading". If you do not have down votes in the science threads, then people like me who are not often knowledgeable enough to differentiate between a reasonable disagreement and the ranting of a crank, will be at a disadvantage.

I guess I interpreted you responding to the post as an indication you wanted to talk about it.

Since you want to explore this further, can you give some examples of America not following another country's lead, lest they appear weak? Do you think there were any times that America did follow another country's lead on fixing problems, and didn't worry whether or not that made them look weak? If America sometimes has knee-jerk reactions, and sometimes follows the lead of others, do you think it is objectively true to say that American does not follow another country's lead because it fears looking weak? And just generally on the other part of my response to rangerx, do you think discussing whether or not America's failure to follow another country's lead on fixing problems lest they appear weak, is on topic wrt the OP? I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that Raider already knew that and simply misspoke, but it's good we got it straightened out anyway.

Yeah, you don't sound angry at all.

Snatch

I already told you I'm willing to take you at your word. I cannot help it if I feel the words you use (see below) strike me as off topic and/or angry commentary about the United States.