iNow

There will always be exceptions. IMO it’s a mistake to focus policy solely on them instead of the vast majority of others who don’t fit that marginal exception.

All I can do is laugh and tilt my head like a confused animal. Summarized: Der_N: Switzerland is not monoethnic Me: Nobody disagrees You: I do Me: It doesn’t seem that way based on what you said You: I don’t understand. I’m pointing out that it’s not monoethnic 😂 😂 I guess you got locked in on his use of the word “anymore.” Okay. Sounds good. He’s also not a member here anymore, so it doesn’t really matter.

https://www.scienceforums.net/search/?q=delete account&type=forums_topic&nodes=28&updated_after=any&sortby=relevancy&search_in=titles

By your own statement here, it's clearly not mono-ethnic, and the sectors you site are ALL European. Weird to me that you say you disagree then post comments immediately following which DIRECTLY support the suggestion it's MOSTLY European... the one with which you claim to disagree.

Only if they planned to share them with me

Nobody disagrees. One person said, "MOST" immigrants are from Europe. You replied, "We also have African Asians." The response of "So what?" remains appropriate.

I have no idea, of neither the answer nor the relevance.

It's not either/or. It's both and. Some of us would prefer focusing on healing and improved health... address root causes instead of symptoms. It won't work in every case, but surely it will work in far more than we're trying today by simply locking people up. For me, it's also a fiscal argument. If we're going to spend money, let's spend it on making people better, not on giving them free room and board and food for the rest of their lives. Interestingly, rehabilitation does this, too. Much more so than punishment, IMO. Punishment comes AFTER the public has already been harmed by this individual, and tends often to let that individual continue harming the public after release. Rehab surely isn't perfect, but does absolutely reduce the chance of repeating the very public harm you and I both agree should be minimized.

Well, some are, but even so... not relevant. Seeking medical advice online leads everyone to having cancer and rare conditions that effect only tiny fractions of the population.

The most likely option: These ancient myths will continue being used to control the masses. Some poor gullible soul will be told by another human (likely a more intelligent one) that their messiah is here, they will point to some regular Joe, and the gullible will believe the person telling them, even when the person telling them is sharing untruths.

You should seek help from a qualified mental health professional. You’re clearly dealing with a lot of difficult issues right now.

I recommend changing the thread title to remove this horribly outdated and hurtful label (even though the video in the OP unsurprisingly uses it, too). We wouldn’t let the word nigger stay in the title, and we equally shouldn’t let the word retarded stay there (unless we’re discussing vectors and obstacles to object acceleration).

This has nothing to do with my happiness, and to be perfectly frank its responses like these which are driving your negative vote receipts (not that you’re saying important things that others don’t wish to hear).

You have both. If you’re not getting the sorts of responses that you want, perhaps look inward and reflect on how you could change your own style to better encourage and drive the conversations and responses you seek.

That’s a shame. Humans are social creatures. We exist together in a society. The expectations and behavioral norms in that society allow it to function and prosper. Feedback when we break those norms allows us to better ourselves and become more productive members by teaching us how to avoid behaviors considered unacceptable. The up and down votes on sites like this one are one such mechanism for receiving this feedback when we’re unable to interact IRL and F2F. While there’s always a role to play in pushing back on norms and challenging social expectations, and while rebelliousness can often be a powerful tool to get groups out of ruts and overcome normalized discrimination or small mindedness, that role of pushing back doesn’t incolve treating others like an asshole or relying on mistakes and flawed thinking in defense of one’s position, both of which driving the vast majority of negative votes here at SFN (that and expressing obstinacy, willful,ignorance, and bigotry toward protected classes). If you take pride in this negative outcome instead of seeing it as a path toward becoming better, then I might suggest you need to find better hobbies,. You’re not Galileo, after all.

Kinda like dealing with thread hijacks

“Rittenhouse" by Portuguese illustrator Andre Carrilho

This isn’t his position, though. You’re asking Zap to defend a stance he’s not here advocating. He’s correctly saying that change won’t come from a Aussie putting forth an argument rooted in personal incredulity… “I can’t see a reason” is a valid opinion, but does nothing to make things better. It’s equivalent to Zaps neighbor saying, “well, I do… so there” and leaves us at an impasse… so maybe best to focus on other aspects of the discussion instead. Zap also said reason is needed more than emotive opinions, with is true to an extent, but Peterkin rightly pushed back on this. Human minds tend more often to be changed at a visceral emotional level, then rationalized after the fact with reason, IMO. Anyway, it’s clear that you don’t think any valid reasons exist for assault-style weapons to be owned and out on the streets and outside the military. So what… What happens next? Fair??

Thank you. I did present that inaccurately and appreciate your correction. My point with that post, however, was that the father has been receiving death threats for over a year. That’s not a problem created by either our 2nd amendment or our gun laws.

It’s not a thread about the 2nd amendment, folks. Not hard to remember this, is it? This is about more than guns. It’s about culture and extremism. For example, the father of the boy that Rittenhouse maimed… the boy who survived but is now paralyzed from the waist down… the father of this kid has been getting countless death threats since this all happened. Death threats. To the father of a boy shot and paralyzed. The 2nd amendment and our gun laws didn’t lead to that.

I’m fine with cameras in the courtroom for reference and training purposes, but I see a lot of potential risks airing it live to the public. It will make it more like a reality TV show where lawyers and judges are pandering to an audience to drive their own popularity and @ mentions and likes, etc. The justice system should be fair and justice blind. Arguments can be made on both sides, but I tend to see more harm than good in most cases (SCOTUS being the exception in my mind due to the broad sweeping impact of their decisions). On another note, CourtTV has been on for 30 years now already. Can’t say it’s had any meaningful impact, negative or positive.

You may as well be hoping unicorns carry your invisible dragon to the leprechaun factory. 2nd amendment isn’t going anywhere, but maybe we could tighten up laws about what’s allowed at protests and large public gatherings. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/11/21/americans-do-not-want-guns-protests-this-research-shows/ Responding to this:

Worse than this. AFTER he’d shot dead others in the street in a state where he didn’t live… and while being out after the curfew they’d imposed to limit violence… several police officers actually pulled him aside and counseled him to hurry up and head home, to leave the scene so he’d be safe and avoid consequence. This whole situation neatly encapsulates why so many people were there protesting for BLM in the first place. Anyway, now that he’s been exonerated, several GOP members of Congress are offering him internships in their offices in DC right now. Fascinating, right? I mean, how do they even know this kid is Republican? Has he written essays on tax policy and the role of government, or is it maybe something else? We may never know! Again, apparently reading comprehension is hard for you. The reference to the AR was a direct quote from Rittenhouse describing his state of mind. I was not discussing either gun policy in the US or the feelings about this modular rifle in particular. If you’re gonna take a shot at me, don’t miss.

I know reading is hard for some, but you seem to be confusing me with someone else Doesn’t quite matter, though. The focus here isn’t guns. It’s asymmetric Justice in US courts