|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 15 2016 05:29 Plansix wrote:
If accountability at a bank so diffused that no one person can be held accountable for the bad actions, that would be one thing. But if accountability is systematically diffused to avoid responsibility across all instructions, it is by design with the intent to avoid criminal liability. If the current laws cannot support criminal cases, then they must be changed to prevent banks from spreading the responsibility so thin.
well my point was some actions that fall short of outright fraud or misrepresentation can create the sort of risk that enable catastrophic systemic failure. for instance, the expectation of future price increase on a financial product may, in conjunction with moral hazard of too big to fail, create a situation where institutions take outsized bets. it's a risky and irresponsible activity, but does not fall into traditional legal categories of criminal activity.
|
On June 15 2016 06:57 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 06:05 Plansix wrote:
The AR-15 is an assault rifle like fire arm that is as close to an assault rifle as the gun can get without being classified as one. Its semantics because the people who design guns build them to avoid being classified as assault rifles. That is because "assault rifle" is a made up term. No army in the world would use the guns used in the nightclub, or a commercially available AR-15 to "assault" a fortified location. Some of the things that were part of the Assault Weapons Bill of 1994 are good features to have on your military weapon, such as a pistol grip (in many situations better), a flash suppressor (prevents counterfire), a barrel shroud (burns and alternative grip), and collapsible stock (easier to transport). But those are just good features for guns because they make the gun easier to use, and, quite frankly, better in 9/10 uses. Armies would trade all those features for selective fire in a heartbeat, then laugh at your dangerous looking "assault rifles".
Full auto is not something you want to do in combat. Lots of enemies charging at you when you are on a defensive position trying to get to very close range is the only situation i can come up where it makes sense , like unarmed civvies would try to get hand to hand to disarm the attacker. Or trenches. Burst is also very rarely used. If you want suppression, that's what machine gunners are for, but even semi-auto fire can be used more effectively than assault rifles on full auto for that purpose.
And i am pretty sure any soldier would trade selective fire for the ammo civvies on the US have access to in a heartbeat lol, i know i would had.
And anyways, you can put full auto mods on the AR-15, so why even have this discussion on the first place ?
|
Take the gun talk to the gun thread please.
|
On June 15 2016 07:17 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 06:57 cLutZ wrote:On June 15 2016 06:05 Plansix wrote:
The AR-15 is an assault rifle like fire arm that is as close to an assault rifle as the gun can get without being classified as one. Its semantics because the people who design guns build them to avoid being classified as assault rifles. That is because "assault rifle" is a made up term. No army in the world would use the guns used in the nightclub, or a commercially available AR-15 to "assault" a fortified location. Some of the things that were part of the Assault Weapons Bill of 1994 are good features to have on your military weapon, such as a pistol grip (in many situations better), a flash suppressor (prevents counterfire), a barrel shroud (burns and alternative grip), and collapsible stock (easier to transport). But those are just good features for guns because they make the gun easier to use, and, quite frankly, better in 9/10 uses. Armies would trade all those features for selective fire in a heartbeat, then laugh at your dangerous looking "assault rifles". Full auto is not something you want to do in combat. Lots of enemies charging at you when you are on a defensive position trying to get to very close range is the only situation i can come up where it makes sense , like unarmed civvies would try to get hand to hand to disarm the attacker. Or trenches. Burst is also very rarely used. If you want suppression, that's what machine gunners are for, but even semi-auto fire can be used more effectively than assault rifles on full auto for that purpose. And i am pretty sure any soldier would trade selective fire for the ammo civvies on the US have access to in a heartbeat lol, i know i would had. And anyways, you can put full auto mods on the AR-15, so why even have this discussion on the first place ?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/313472-if-youre-seeing-this-topic-then-another-mass-shooting-happened-and-people-disagree-on-what-to-do?page=608
|
Do the Donald Trump apologists in this thread believe the Muslim ban is a good idea?
|
On June 15 2016 07:50 Doodsmack wrote:
Do the Donald Trump apologists in this thread believe the Muslim ban is a good idea?
Do you really think that you're going to get a good faith debate with a loaded question like that?
|
Do people who intend to vote for Donald trump think his Muslim ban is a good idea?
|
On June 15 2016 07:16 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 05:29 Plansix wrote:
If accountability at a bank so diffused that no one person can be held accountable for the bad actions, that would be one thing. But if accountability is systematically diffused to avoid responsibility across all instructions, it is by design with the intent to avoid criminal liability. If the current laws cannot support criminal cases, then they must be changed to prevent banks from spreading the responsibility so thin. well my point was some actions that fall short of outright fraud or misrepresentation can create the sort of risk that enable catastrophic systemic failure. for instance, the expectation of future price increase on a financial product may, in conjunction with moral hazard of too big to fail, create a situation where institutions take outsized bets. it's a risky and irresponsible activity, but does not fall into traditional legal categories of criminal activity.
you might say calling for the jailing of wall streeters is the financial equivalent of bernieorbust: blind rage combined with policy/situation ignorance
|
On June 15 2016 08:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Do people who intend to vote for Donald trump think his Muslim ban is a good idea?
It's an idea that is at least worthy of serious discussion as opposed to being summarily dismissed by the left. Like I have said previously, the US -- or any other Western nation for that matter -- should not import peoples who are unwilling/unable to assimilate into Western culture.
|
There's no religious status in your passport. It's literally impossible to ban muslims. I asked this the last time as well and nobody was actually able to answer me. is the US seriously going to stop travelers from whole nations, which if it's targeting Muslims is probably going to be a few dozen, 80% of which aren't even in the Middle East? You're just going to ban all 250 million Indonesians from the US?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 15 2016 08:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 07:16 oneofthem wrote:On June 15 2016 05:29 Plansix wrote:
If accountability at a bank so diffused that no one person can be held accountable for the bad actions, that would be one thing. But if accountability is systematically diffused to avoid responsibility across all instructions, it is by design with the intent to avoid criminal liability. If the current laws cannot support criminal cases, then they must be changed to prevent banks from spreading the responsibility so thin. well my point was some actions that fall short of outright fraud or misrepresentation can create the sort of risk that enable catastrophic systemic failure. for instance, the expectation of future price increase on a financial product may, in conjunction with moral hazard of too big to fail, create a situation where institutions take outsized bets. it's a risky and irresponsible activity, but does not fall into traditional legal categories of criminal activity. you might say calling for the jailing of wall streeters is the financial equivalent of bernieorbust: blind rage combined with policy/situation ignorance
well i think it would do a lot of good to design some sort of personal reach to top level executives when bets are taken with high leverage or some other standard. it is not a tool id abandon.
brits have this disqualification mechanism for corporate executives found to be at fault at a standard a bit lower than fraud. could be emulated
|
Fines would accomplish good (i.e. redistribution to wronged parties). Jail time does nothing. People who think it would prevent the kinds of systemic failures that caused 2008 either don't understand the facts or don't understand people.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 15 2016 08:48 IgnE wrote:
Fines would accomplish good (i.e. redistribution to wronged parties). Jail time does nothing. People who think it would prevent the kinds of systemic failures that caused 2008 either don't understand the facts or don't understand people.
when it comes to things like diffused risk, having some mechanism to make the actors share in the downside risk to some degree is theoretically good. there is a powerful motivational rationale for internalizing the downside risk to the best positioned risk minimizers, the top level executives.
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/01/28/why-investment-bankers-should-have-some-personal-liability/
|
And personal liability involving their obscene bonuses is a good thing. Sending them to jail when they could theoretically be productive members of society is just punitive with no upside.
|
Zero personal liability on to of the short term profit driven culture is not a good mix.
Edit: yeah, I have no problem with sending them to jail if they cross the line into fraud. Which people did leading up to 2008. I don't believe in the meritocracy where people that pull high quarterly earnings don't get punished because they are "to valuable."
|
Yeah well if you really want to fix the problem maybe you should dismantle the system instead of sending a few individuals to jail.
By the way I wasn't implying that in being "productive members of society" that they were "too valuable" to go to jail except insofar as every human life has value.
|
On June 15 2016 08:56 IgnE wrote:
And personal liability involving their obscene bonuses is a good thing. Sending them to jail when they could theoretically be productive members of society is just punitive with no upside.
I'm advocating it because nothing fixes systems that abuse people who go through them, like sending some privileged as f**k white men through it.
And I don't mind people who thought risking the global economy being punitively punished so long as they do nothing to change the system while they're outside of it.
@m4ni I'll answer your post in the gun thread.
|
While we move towards dissembling the system, I think a healthy mix of pecuniary and personal liability is in order relative to financial institutions 
|
On June 15 2016 09:11 farvacola wrote:While we move towards dissembling the system, I think a healthy mix of pecuniary and personal liability is in order relative to financial institutions
Pecuniary and personal aren't opposites.
|
On June 15 2016 08:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 08:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Do people who intend to vote for Donald trump think his Muslim ban is a good idea? It's an idea that is at least worthy of serious discussion as opposed to being summarily dismissed by the left. Like I have said previously, the US -- or any other Western nation for that matter -- should not import peoples who are unwilling/unable to assimilate into Western culture.
Many in the left are unwilling to properly acknowledge the existence of a Muslim problem, and are willing to ignore some remarkably bad actions by Muslims that are a direct result of poorly thought out immigration policies. Not all Muslims are bad, and probably not most, but many more than are being acknowledged by the American and European left. Between doing what the left does and an outright ban, the latter is probably better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
