Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Gatefan1976]

I didn't miss his point. I got it the first time around. Apparently, neither of you two understood what I was saying, even in quoting my "own words". I was supporting the original debate over ancestral identity that started with the below quotes--



Anywho...
Not going to go into the whole American / ancestral heritage discussion again. What's been said is done. Seems pointless to continue, lest be drawn into more confusion when there isn't any need for such.

Have you ever wondered why so many people seem to constantly "misunderstand" you?

As a former Catholic attendee, I can state that those Church confessional items are structured ordered rules of obedience -- has to do with morals and obeying the Ten Commandments (something that belongs to a higher power, but the priest is the mediator between the penitent and God, in this situation). Established Church rules are part of a some spiritual disciplinary obedience thing, on a spiritual level instead. A person's submission to the rules of ordered Church discipline are voluntary, but are often done as instructed because (generic) *you* want to do what is considered correct behavior before both man and God.

I know how it works, and once more you merely prove my point, you (generic )submit willingly to the will of others.

Conversations that exist between boyfriend and girlfriend are not yet married as an official family unit yet, so both sides are still free to do as they choose.

Does that change after marriage?

[garhkal]

No, so far the news hasn't discovered that far ahead yet. The FBI is still looking at the guy's activities on "social media" so that particular bit of info hasn't yet come out into the news (as of the time that I heard it on the WCBS-880-AM radio).

Strange how social media can be scoured for DAYS after an incident to find out what's up, but can't be checked out BEFORE hand to see if there are any flags...

I wonder what happens when the special counsel is fired by Trump for investigating Trump

Well, since he IS friends with Comey, i can't see how in anyway he can be seen as impartial..

Why do you always ask these stupid questions?

Cause i often don't get answered..

And that's your opinion, key word being "opinion". The problem is when you are unwilling to balance other opinions to come up with a compromise. Compromising is a long dead American tradition. Now we are stuck with "It's my way or the highway"
tradition which has yet to yield any results.

And which side of the political spectrum has elevated that to an art form.. Oh yea, DEMS! Hell liberals even are rabid about not hearing other opinions, let alone allowing those opinions to try and lean them towards making compromises..

And then there was this passing by on my twitter-feed:

Through June 14, 2017:

Americans killed by guns: 6,886
Gun reform bills: 0

Americans killed by Muslim refugees: 0
Travel ban attempts: 2

Americans killed from alcohol
# of ban attempts - 1. PROHIBITION.

Once again, we aren't talking about Illegal Immigration. Notice how when talking about legal immigrants you shift into illegal immigration? And so...where do you consider libertarians anyway? You think libertarianism is "left"?

For me, i mostly stick with illegal aliens. LEGAL immigration, i've got NOT THAT much of a problem with. Just as long as they go back when their visa's are up. if they stay after, tehy go into the "illegal" box..
However, the group i see mostly confulating the two, is the liberal media. Someone asks you are you for or against immigration, and someone replies "For, as long as its legally done", and they get labeled racist for not wanting mexicans in.. EVEN THOUGH illegal aliens are of damn near ALL RACES/ethnicities..

This one is a real fence sitter for me.
While the young woman in question is despicable, manipulative and a general all-around lousy human being, I can't justify criminal charges. Really, convincing someone to kill themselves over the phone? That's just as absurd as an accusation of bullying over social networks.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...616-story.html

Sorry Annoyed. BUT i disagree. I've known plenty of people bullied online over the years, and one who DID commit suicide cause of it, similarly to those i knew back in the 80s=90s who did it from In your face bullying.
However, manslaughter, i can't see. Depraved indifference i can. AND the defenses BS about "she was on her anti-depression drugs, so she wasn't in her right mind"./ What the hu!??!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/16...ast-japan.html

Ruh Roh.. Somebody's arse is going to be in a sling.

I just got done with the Origins game fair in town, and just heard about that. And what i'd love to know, is WHAT THE HELL was going on in the CIC? Was everyone asleep and not monitoring radar/navigational radar? AND those on the bridge, were they BLIND that they couldn't see the running lights on that container ship?!??!

But I can't buy into grounds for legal action for the simple reason that she cannot have possibly taken any physical action to cause his death as she was not physically present, merely communicating with him. If you and I disagree over some issue, and I tell you to go take a long walk off a short pier, is it my fault if you do so? Of course not. I'm thousands of miles away and cannot possibly injure you.

She could have called the cops, kept him on the line OUTSIDE his car, gotten him to leave the garage or even turned the car off. She could have done quite a bit. BUT she talked him into going back IN.. THat's why she's guilty.

[thekillman]

yup....what many people fail to realize is that there's this thing called willpower....if someone is bullying you into killing yourself it is YOUR choice whether or not to act upon it

Assuming they have a healthy state of mind. Being suicidal doesn't really sound like a healthy state of mind to me.

It's why being depressed is a real mental illness: what you need to get through it (a positive attitude) is exactly what you lack (namely, you can't really see the good part in life anymore). In the case of addiction, the thing your body craves is what you need to get rid of to get out of it.

In the case of suicidal tendencies, people simply no longer see a way out of their problems other than death. To get over this you need to find meaning in life. Someone encouraging you to go kill yourself is the very antithesis of what you need.

Again: someone in perfect mental health can maybe resist this, but these conditions mean they're not in perfect mental health.

Also Annoyed, people aren't isolated automatons. Peer pressure is a thing. Social pressures are a thing. Parental influences are a thing. The people around us influence us.

[Annoyed]

Also Annoyed, people aren't isolated automatons. Peer pressure is a thing. Social pressures are a thing. Parental influences are a thing. The people around us influence us.

Only if you permit them to do so.

[aretood2]

The question was rhetorical; I know damned well what a min. basic income is, another form of welfare or paying people not to work.
The libertarian angle is a hoot, though. Libertarian ideals are geared towards the most freedom, with the least amount of intrusion by govt. I find it hilarious, as well as hypocritical that someone who claims that ideology wants a freakin' handout.
The only freedom these writers want is a free ride.

You miss the point. The point isn't to make it so that there's a perfect capitalist system. That's impossible now. I can categorize libertarians into two camps. One camp still thinks we live in the 1700's where health is not something you can manage, education is not indispensable, and infrastructure only needs to be basic and simple and is extremely (by comparison) easy to maintain. And then there's the camp that sees what's coming our way and realizes that some things can no longer exist the way they used to. The people backing some form of basic income scheme are in the latter camp.

The thing I am talking about is automation. Pretty soon driverless vehicle technology will send the teamsters into the unemployment lines. Soon after it will have the same effect in at least a dozen other sectors of the job market. Where are these people going to go? What are they going to do? Or do you suggest we just let tens of thousands clog up the welfare system to no avail? Or should they starve to death? Do I need to remind you what would happen to the economy when they stop buying things? It will have a spill over effect. The end result will be wage inequality that hasn't been seen since the old days of the feudal system. There's a reason innovation didn't take off until the end of the feudal system...

Even one of the sites you reference shoots the idea down fairly well.

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com...-basic-income/



So, in that guy's view of it, once you make $12/Hour, your BMI grant is taken right back from you in taxes. So much for universal basic income. If you do work, you get bupkis. So it's just another fancy welfare scheme.

Problem is that while the IDEA sounds nice, it's unaffordable.

The other sites deal with that issue, but I picked that third link because I Knew you'd bring it up yourself. There's more than one scheme, or as they say, there's more than one way to skin a cat. The point is that it will be needed and you either rely on one of these schemes or simply grow the welfare state to size that is beyond unsustainable. Either way, if it isn't done we can see a really bad future ahead of us. You'll be dead before we hit that wall, but for those of us who will still be alive...I'd rather not live in a world where America has a small rich population and a huge poor population with virtually no middle class having to deal with China as the sole superpower....because we all know Europe won't do anything and eventually Russia's love affair with Putin will burn out.

Strange how social media can be scoured for DAYS after an incident to find out what's up, but can't be checked out BEFORE hand to see if there are any flags...

You want to live in 1984's world?

Cause i often don't get answered..

How is one supposed to answer that question? Who decides what's better? Um...anyone with a brain...I think most animals can decide what is better too. What is that question even supposed to mean?

Americans killed from alcohol
# of ban attempts - 1. PROHIBITION.

There's a tad bit little flaw in your logic here, this is a false equivalency. Alcohol kills the user of alcohol, not a second party. Guns and terrorists kill a second party, and in the case of terrorists it kills both parties.

I just got done with the Origins game fair in town, and just heard about that. And what i'd love to know, is WHAT THE HELL was going on in the CIC? Was everyone asleep and not monitoring radar/navigational radar? AND those on the bridge, were they BLIND that they couldn't see the running lights on that container ship?!??!

I don't understand how either ship could have done it. I could buy two civilian ships crashing into each other...but a US Navy destroyer?

[Falcon Horus]

But I can't buy into grounds for legal action for the simple reason that she cannot have possibly taken any physical action to cause his death as she was not physically present, merely communicating with him. If you and I disagree over some issue, and I tell you to go take a long walk off a short pier, is it my fault if you do so? Of course not. I'm thousands of miles away and cannot possibly injure you.

She's indirectly responsible for his death. She may not have pulled the proverbial trigger, but she did nothing to stop him from going through with it, right up to the point where he's committing the act itself. She could have called the emergency services on him, or talked him out of the car instead of back in. She wilfully neglected to aid him in a moment of need where she was well aware of what he was doing.

It's the same as when you talk someone off a ledge, but instead of trying to get them to step down you tell them to jump. Which is an offence.

I have no idea what goes on in someone's mind, right before they kill themselves and I think it must be a really dark moment, or maybe it's a peaceful moment knowing the pain's gonna stop -- at last.
But their mind is probably void of rational thoughts or the will to go on.

Usually, the rules goes that those who announce their intentions, are looking for someone to stop them. Just about anyone -- doesn't really matter, just someone to go up to them and help them. Those who attempt it, and use a method known to fail in half the cases, usually also just need this attempt to find help because they just don't know know any other way.

And then there are those who plan their ending, say goodbye but you don't realize it's goodbye until it's too late. They go about their day, like nothing's out of the ordinary, and then --- it stops.

It's been 13 years, this June.

If this precedent is established, how long before someone breaks up with someone, and the ditched party goes off the deep end and kills their self, and the ditcher finds him/herself charged with a crime? Suppose you and I are dating, you find someone that rings your bell more than I do, and you dump me. Suppose I go all emo and suicide as a result. Should you be charged with murder?

If you're going to be charged with murder/etc.. I think its a good idea if you actually killed someone.

That's a hard case to make, since the other party didn't do anything past breaking up. They had no hand in the deed itself -- they were unaware of it at the the moment it happened. The only crime they would be guilty of, in a manner of speaking, was breaking up which could have been the last in a long line of failures as perceived by the other side.

However, there is a mention of assisted suicide. I don't know in how far this is legal in the states (separate and federal). But a case could be made that if I were to help you die a dignified death, your family could sue the living daylights out of me, and I could be accused of murder -- I didn't commit the act but I did help you get the ingredients and mixed the concoctions needed to end it. Or pull the plug or whatever.

What the hell is a basic minimum income, provided by the govt. if not an expanded welfare state?
And who pays for it? How you going to do that?

Let's bring in Finland, and the people who receive it:

Is Finland’s basic universal income a solution to automation, fewer jobs and lower wages?

Psychology people have been publishing their theories as facts for years. Still doesn't mean you can "talk" someone to death.

If that made any sense, than we would never have heard of the power of suggestion or the power of persuasion. Nor would we have suicide bombers, indoctrination, conversion therapy, torture, abuse, ... and so on and so on.

Killing someone requires some overt physical act to harm the target. You can't (as yet) do that via any communications medium. Maybe once we develop transporters that will change.

Words can cut through flesh like no knife can.

Words can hurt people -- can kill people.

Words have power.

yup....what many people fail to realize is that there's this thing called willpower....if someone is bullying you into killing yourself it is YOUR choice whether or not to act upon it

If only it were that simple.

Yes, it is your choice to end the pain and suffering, but would you have gotten there if the bullying hadn't fasttracked it, or been there in the first place?

...the guy and girl still have control (to be responsible) of their own actions and behaviors.

If you had bothered to read the article, you would have known it had nothing to do with the sort of relationship they had. They were in a sort of long-distance relationship, texting back and forth. Both of them suffering from mental problems. The young man had already attempted suicide 4 times before he finally succeeded (with the help from his girlfriend).
He was suffering from depression -- his mind was in a dark place.

Seems like the boyfriend had some sort of issue with being led around by his girlfriend, as if he was on some sort of leash, and he fell right into her domineering "do as I say" trap.

He was sufforing from depression -- attempted suicide 4 times before his final succesful attempt. People in that situation are easily manipulated, and usually don't make many conscious choices.

She was a cutter and suffering from her own mental disorders. They made a suicide pact, like Romeo and Juliette (which wasn't supposed to be suicide as it was supposed to be a fake death, but turned out slightly different because of a miscommunication so no idea why they would make that comparison). She pulled out, he didn't. She just told him what he wanted to hear, what she knew would drive him over the edge. She mentally abused his already detoriated state. He never stood a chance, and neither does she.

Some guys like domineering females lording over them. Most guys (whom I've met) don't. Apparently, this boy didn't know how to find a happy balance in their relationship, and basically accepted being shafted (into an "oh woe is me..") as a result, and paid the price between life and death as a result. Surely other factors may have added into aggravating his ultimate decision of woe.

WOMAN!! The relationship wasn't the problem -- it wasn't even a physical one -- or the main problem, at least...

Conrad's problems ran far deeper, far far deeper if you have tried to off yourself 4 times already.

From the article:

Both teenagers had a history of psychological problems. Carter had struggled with anorexia and self-cutting. Roy had tried to kill himself as many as four times previously. The teenagers had met two years before his death on vacation with their families in Florida and realized that they lived near each other on the outskirts of Boston. In their text messages — they rarely saw each other in person — they professed their love, at one point deciding they would kill themselves like Romeo and Juliet, but Carter rejected the idea and focused instead on getting Roy alone to commit suicide.

Also, that stereotyical male image of yours. :eyeroll:

Cause i often don't get answered.

I always try to answer.

Americans killed from alcohol
# of ban attempts - 1. PROHIBITION.

MOONSHINE -- which then killed even more Americans cause of alcohol poisoning.

You are a true republican, since their solution to gun violence is more guns, not less.

BUT i disagree. I've known plenty of people bullied online over the years, and one who DID commit suicide cause of it, similarly to those i knew back in the 80s=90s who did it from In your face bullying.
However, manslaughter, i can't see. Depraved indifference i can. AND the defenses BS about "she was on her anti-depression drugs, so she wasn't in her right mind"./ What the hu!??!

Have you ever seen the side effects these things give you?

My side-effects take up 3 A4-sized papers.
Though luckily they do not all occur otherwise I might be dead right now.

[garhkal]

You want to live in 1984's world?

Not really. BUT if twitter/farcebook etc, CAN scourer people's posts and censor out stuff they think's too right wing, WHY THEN does it take them till there's outrage before they do the same to Terrorist inspiring/teaching/bomb making posts/videos etc??

There's a tad bit little flaw in your logic here, this is a false equivalency. Alcohol kills the user of alcohol, not a second party. Guns and terrorists kill a second party, and in the case of terrorists it kills both parties.

Try telling that to all those who've died from a Drunk driver..

I don't understand how either ship could have done it. I could buy two civilian ships crashing into each other...but a US Navy destroyer?

My thoughts exactly. Hell, on one site where its being discussed some are saying that ONE news report says it was the freighter that crashed INTO the naval ship.. Others say the opposite..

[The Flyattractor]

My thoughts exactly. Hell, on one site where its being discussed some are saying that ONE news report says it was the freighter that crashed INTO the naval ship.. Others say the opposite..

Seeing the damage done in the pics, it looks to me like the Freighter hit the Navy Ship seeing as how all the damage is on the side of the Navy boat. Unless U.S Navy Boats can now sail sideways...

[Gatefan1976]

http://www.pcmag.com/news/354425/gop...of-198m-voters

[Annoyed]

Seeing the damage done in the pics, it looks to me like the Freighter hit the Navy Ship seeing as how all the damage is on the side of the Navy boat. Unless U.S Navy Boats can now sail sideways...

Judging from the damage on the two ships, it appears that the freighter was to the right of the Destroyer, and turned to try to pass in front of the Destroyer, turning in front of it. Intentionally or not, who knows.

But if you look at the positioning of navigation lights on vessels, Red on the port (left) side and Green on the starboard side, the freighter would have seen the Destroyer's Green lights to their left, indicating that they (the freighter) had the right of way under navigation law.
While it's a good bet that there were many other factors in play, and I have no doubt we will see a complete report at some point, this may have been the DE's fault.

[Gatefan1976]

[The Flyattractor]

Meh. That Destroy could have cleared the way easy. Cause THEY GOT THE BIG GUNS! And Guns solve Most Problems.

[Annoyed]

We're not at war with the Philippines.

[Annoyed]

You miss the point. The point isn't to make it so that there's a perfect capitalist system. That's impossible now. I can categorize libertarians into two camps. One camp still thinks we live in the 1700's where health is not something you can manage, education is not indispensable, and infrastructure only needs to be basic and simple and is extremely (by comparison) easy to maintain. And then there's the camp that sees what's coming our way and realizes that some things can no longer exist the way they used to. The people backing some form of basic income scheme are in the latter camp.

The thing I am talking about is automation. Pretty soon driverless vehicle technology will send the teamsters into the unemployment lines. Soon after it will have the same effect in at least a dozen other sectors of the job market. Where are these people going to go? What are they going to do? Or do you suggest we just let tens of thousands clog up the welfare system to no avail? Or should they starve to death? Do I need to remind you what would happen to the economy when they stop buying things? It will have a spill over effect. The end result will be wage inequality that hasn't been seen since the old days of the feudal system. There's a reason innovation didn't take off until the end of the feudal system...

First, the idea is unaffordable. You try to levy taxes heavy enough to support that, and you'll chase every person whom you try to tax out of the country, or out of their own jobs. People will just stop working and live off the gmi. There won't be enough people who are still subject to tax.

But the better question might be "Why not stop and try to reverse at lease some of the changes that are causing the lack of jobs?"
How long have I been saying that Free Trade isn't such a good thing for us?
Whenever I say that, the objections are typically "well, those people will have to learn new jobs"
Are you conceding that there simply won't be enough jobs? So maybe reversing that trend to whatever degree is possible isn't such a bad idea?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[garhkal]

Seeing the damage done in the pics, it looks to me like the Freighter hit the Navy Ship seeing as how all the damage is on the side of the Navy boat. Unless U.S Navy Boats can now sail sideways...

And one is left wondering. Were all the bridge crew and Co asleep at the wheel??

http://www.pcmag.com/news/354425/gop...of-198m-voters

Someone's head needs to roll for that!