boboblong
You are being an idiot and should get the fuck over this nonissue.
That's nice, but when are we going to address the real barriers faced by women? Women are vastly outnumbered by men in many sectors, including workplace injuries and fatalities, acute and chronic homelessness, suicides, mental illness including schizophrenia, violent crime victimization, recruitment into gangs and child armies at a young age, legal genital mutilation, false imprisonment, unfair estrangement from children, involuntary celibacy, and a host of other exciting fields. When are we going to stop pussyfooting around and demand a better ratio of women to men in the really important sectors? If we work together, I know we can do it.
Is this really a mainstream political philosophy on HN?
But that's absurd. He only used that phrase in response to a claim that men in tech are incorrigibly sexist and hostile.
Oh, please! "She"? Let's all ruin the flow of our prose in an attempt at social engineering that probably isn't even worthwhile, shall we? I suppose you didn't bat an eyelash at Denzel Washington as savant pilot Whip Whitaker either.
Many gun deaths are gang-related or otherwise criminal-on-criminal. Also, with less strict gun control a robber is more likely to be shot dead by their intended victim, which is a good thing. Yes, I mean that; I'm not equivocating: it is a Good Thing when an attempted robbery fails because the would-be robber is shot dead. (Minor assailants should of course not be shot, but it's also a Good Thing when an assault bordering on attempted murder ends with the death of the assailant.) Hell, it's a Good Thing when gangbangers shoot one another dead. There's a Tupac line that goes "[something something something] give 'em guns, step back, watch 'em kill each other". Bearing in mind that I'm referring to gangsters ONLY and in no way black people in general, Tupac's darkly humorous suggestion is actually a good one.
To put it bluntly, if I could push a button and reduce violent crime by 75% across the board but it meant that gun deaths would quadruple--but 80% of those new deaths would be violent criminals--I would do it.
>So, Americans should keep their guns, but equally not complain about other freedoms being compromised to compensate.
I don't even own a gun and have only fired a gun a few times (when I went trap shooting just for the hell of it). Still, I wish you would try to take some freedoms from the "gun nuts" as "compensation" just so I could watch you get your ass handed to you.
Hypothetically, if a legal firm is engaging in clearly predatory behavior, can a point be reached at which it is morally justifiable to retaliate against said firm in an extralegal manner? Perhaps law firms that walk the line of ethical behavior but are clearly behaving immorally by any reasonable standard present a sort of edge case. Usually, a moral person should settle his disputes in a civilized manner by going through the proper legal channels. However, if a moral person is being abused by a law firm that is capable of outmaneuvering him in all or almost all legal proceedings, what recourse does that person have? A good analogy is a battered wife who is reasonably certain that going to the police will result in her husband murdering her. In such cases, courts have ruled that a wife may initiate force against her husband and yet be acting in self-defense.
Another analogy is the idea that it's possible for the US government to become so corrupt and/or abusive that revolution becomes justified. If the people of the US were ever to attempt a revolution, however, they would certainly be labeled terrorists by the US government, and their actions would be considered treasonous. Nevertheless, there is a point at which revolution is theoretically justifiable, despite being treasonous. That point is when it becomes impossible to participate in the political process. The actions of an oppressive government amount to legal abuse, much like the actions of a predatory law firm.
I'm not trying to rile anyone up here, but all I see are comments that come off as totally defeatist. We tell our kids to use their words, but no one can be bullied forever. Eventually, something's gotta give.
>Also, all the rights listed in the first ten amendments are limited to the point at which you're infringing on someone else's rights. The threat of death or injury, such as it is, would seem to be a pretty clear reason to limit that right.
Apparently, if someone legally owns a gun, this presents a "threat of death or injury" to others. Of course, if the gun weren't legally owned by an individual but still existed, it would either be illegally owned by an individual or be legally owned by the government or by some other exempted institution. You might feel safer with only the government and criminals owning guns, but many others would feel less safe. What makes your fear more legitimate than theirs? Other rights are restricted only when exercising them would directly infringe on the rights of others. You can't demonstrate that you would be safer if a particular gun owner with no criminal record were forced to turn in his gun. You can't even demonstrate that you would be safer if all law-abiding gun owners were forced to turn in their guns. Even if you could, you couldn't demonstrate that your increased safety wouldn't be more than offset by the decreased safety of the gun owner(s).
The comparison between gun ownership and first-amendment rights is not a good one, because there are already restrictions on gun ownership comparable to the restriction on first-amendment rights. True, you don't have the right to practice human sacrifice--you also don't have the right to murder people with your legally owned guns. True, you can be prosecuted for incitement--and also for waving your gun around in public. True, you can be sued for libel--and you can be prosecuted for brandishing.
You're wrong. Generalizing from your personal experience and from verifiable facts while paying little attention to vague whining and anonymous accusations (of unnamed alleged perpetrators, no less!) is an excellent way to approach life.
Has it ever occurred to you that many people strongly dislike it when others attempt to change their legal, nonviolent behavior? It's nosy, condescending, self-righteous, and creepy.
You think that calling someone's idea crappy is unacceptable? In what sense of the word? Are you saying that it should be illegal to make fun of someone's ideas?
How is that a problem? What do you propose we do about it? Should be fine people for saying mean things? I don't follow, sorry.