|
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. |
On November 09 2017 05:57 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2017 05:39 mozoku wrote:On November 09 2017 05:05 kollin wrote:On November 09 2017 03:44 mozoku wrote:On November 09 2017 03:27 Velr wrote:
Also how is a decrease of 500& for someone that makes 10k "fair" if the guy with 1mio gets 11k? One is using his money for food/stuff he needs.. The other for the new porsche. Because taxes are based on percentages? If you want to stay counting taxes by absolute dollar amounts contributions stratified by income, your position gets immensely weaker so I don't know why you're even going there. The guy making $10M per year generally makes many times the economic contribution than the guy making $10k. Given that, why should the guy making $10M pay more in taxes? The cost to the government of support to each is probably comparable. Why are we charging the people who make us rich more money to live here, when their cost to us is the same? The answer is that a progressive tax has little philosophical justification if you acknowledge that someone should pay his what he costs to his/her government and no more. Granted, there are plenty of utilitarian reasons to argue for a progressive tax system (which is why we have one), but the moral argument that's typically invoked in politics (and is being bandied about here) is intellectually bankrupt from a moral perspective. Unless you're willing to argue that you're morally entitled to essentially steal/shakedown high earners people to increase your own happiness. You can sort of try to sidestep this reality by assuming a "fair" tax system is one that's based on percentages. Which is the default assumption in our society (probably because of what's above), though I've never heard a compelling moral or philosophical argument for why that is. Utilitarianism IS a moral argument. But beside that, saying that taxation is 'essentially' stealing is breathtakingly ignorant of the relationship between individuals and society. Absolute utilitarianism is also a thoroughly and nearly universally rejected moral system, so I'm not sure what your point is except to be annoyingly anal. I said taxation beyond an individual's cost to the government is morally unjustifiable without invoking (to clarify, some degree of) utilitarianism. There's nothing unreasonable or ignorant about that. To make utilitarian calculations with someone else's money necessarily means you're imposing your values onto them. Granted, this can be justified but it can only rationally and morally be justified when consciously weighed against the value of the infringement on their values/agency as an individual. Of course, as a Democratic politician, it make sense to ignore all that and brainwash your base into believing that the rich have somehow cheated you to get their money and that you're actually entitled to it as much of it as you want. Notice there's no moral consideration even involved in the process. It's a political/electoral consideration in the interest of the politician. Much as the same as "white nationalism" is for a faction of the GOP, and just as morally/intellectually bankrupt. Whats the problem with invoking a degree of utilitarian justification? Of course taxation is somewhat utilitarian by nature, but that doesn't make it morally bankrupt. The results of taxation to fund a larger social security system are generally lower child poverty, higher educational attainment in kids, improved health, improved mental health, reduced crime, reduced public disruption and so on so forth. The moral justification for these advantages are just as self-evident as the moral justification for individual liberty.
despite being a statistician he's incapable of thinking about systems of relations between humans. for him "the human," and by extension the "rational and the moral" (although its actually unclear if there is a distinction between the moral and the rational for him -- the "moral" seems only to function as rational axioms from which deductive corollaries are drawn) begins and ends with the individual spirit, maybe extended a bit to include progeny. its sad really. a social consequence of anomie.
|
On November 09 2017 05:55 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2017 05:33 Plansix wrote:
I don’t see a lot of point with new guns laws restricting fire arms when the current gun laws are barely enforced. Democrats should just double down on enforcing existing guns laws and funding agencies that are supposed to maintain data bases. Considering domestic violence is such a common factor in these mass shootings: an outstanding charge or conviction a reason to be denied a gun seems like a perfect solution. I can't see how you increase enforcement without some kind of legislation. And whatever increased enforcement is almost certainly going to have law changes. EDIT: look I also think increased enforcement is the way to go, but I don't think splitting that line is actually viable at a political sales level.
Yes, some laws might need to be passed, but they could be sold as updates closing loopholes. You would be shocked at the number of ways that the NRA has undercut the existing laws by not linking data bases and limiting the ability of the ATF compile information. NPR did a story in the mid 2000s about the ATF not being allowed to use computers to request criminal records because of some NRA backed rule. Just removing the red tape and making functional database will do wonders.
|
|
|
The political centre in the US is really having a tough time right now
|
Cops wearing bike helmets arrest clown.
BREAKING NEWS.
wtf?
|
If people have not read the New Yorker article about Weinstein's army of spies trying to ruin peoples lives and keep reports of his activity under raps, its worth it. The entire thing would seem farfetched in a John Grisham novel, but it was all real life.
Article
|
Helpfully, USA Today has your possible modifications to the AR-15 style rifle, such as a chainsaw bayonet.
|
Are chainsaw bayonets a real thing? Like, I doubt they'd be useful, but are they real?
|
On November 09 2017 07:24 Nevuk wrote:Are chainsaw bayonets a real thing? Like, I doubt they'd be useful, but are they real?
Have no doubt, it has been tried. And I’m sure there is some dark corner of the internet where you can order one that sort of works. Remember, gun owners mounted a 9mm onto a drone and just started shooting it like it was a good idea. And then posted the video to youtube without first checking if what they did was legal(it was not).
Edit: Google image search has proven that it is a very real thing and my god these people are idiots.
|
Well, that explains a bit
When Bill O’Reilly was in the middle of settling sexual harassment claims against him, he managed to hold onto his job for a while, despite his employer knowing about the allegations. According to 21st Century Fox Independent Director Jacques Nasser, that’s because O’Reilly’s contract at the time protected him from just such a situation.
At a hearing before the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) dealing with Fox’s potential merger with Sky, Nasser said that 21st Century Fox’s board was aware of O’Reilly’s settlements, and some wanted to get rid of him as soon as they found out. Despite their wishes, they couldn’t do anything about it, according to the CMA’s summary of the hearing. This is because a clause in the host’s contract said that his employment could not be terminated due to harassment allegations unless there was a court decision against him. That means that no matter how many out-of-court settlements took place, including the $32 million one with legal analyst Lis Wiehl, Fox was barred from firing O’Reilly for them.
Of course, this doesn’t explain why Fox renewed O’Reilly’s contract when the old one expired. Fox did, however, give themselves some much-needed leverage in the new contract. The old clause was gone, and the company gave themselves the ability to get rid of O’Reilly based on allegations alone. When The New York Times published a report that said O’Reilly and Fox had paid settlements to five different women for complaints against him, the company was then able to part ways with O’Reilly, thanks to the new clause.
lawnewz.com
|
United States44286 Posts
Sounds like some Warhammer 40k cosplay thing. Sometimes you just gotta exterminatus some heretics I guess.
|
He's shouting "There's no place for the radical middle!"? Radical middle..? Is that like chaotic neutral or something..?
|
On November 09 2017 07:24 Nevuk wrote:Are chainsaw bayonets a real thing? Like, I doubt they'd be useful, but are they real?
You don’t hear about it because the NRA is paying to stop the stories. Those underbarrel attachments are the real problem facing America, and I hope to God Feinstein is fixing this pronto.
|
On November 09 2017 07:37 Excludos wrote:He's shouting "There's no place for the radical middle!"? Radical middle..? Is that like chaotic neutral or something..?
It's a genuine political ideology. He seems very committed to the cause
|
On November 09 2017 07:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2017 07:24 Nevuk wrote:Are chainsaw bayonets a real thing? Like, I doubt they'd be useful, but are they real? You don’t hear about it because the NRA is paying to stop the stories. Those underbarrel attachments are the real problem facing America, and I hope to God Feinstein is fixing this pronto.
Only thing I found was a couple people in YouTube offering to do it for 300$ in 2008. Not even sure where USA today got the idea of its a thing.
|
On November 09 2017 07:55 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2017 07:46 Danglars wrote:On November 09 2017 07:24 Nevuk wrote:Are chainsaw bayonets a real thing? Like, I doubt they'd be useful, but are they real? You don’t hear about it because the NRA is paying to stop the stories. Those underbarrel attachments are the real problem facing America, and I hope to God Feinstein is fixing this pronto. Only thing I found was a couple people in YouTube offering to do it for 300$ in 2008. Not even sure where USA today got the idea of its a thing.
Gears of War. It was like that entire game.
|
On November 09 2017 07:35 Nevuk wrote:Well, that explains a bit Show nested quote +When Bill O’Reilly was in the middle of settling sexual harassment claims against him, he managed to hold onto his job for a while, despite his employer knowing about the allegations. According to 21st Century Fox Independent Director Jacques Nasser, that’s because O’Reilly’s contract at the time protected him from just such a situation.
At a hearing before the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) dealing with Fox’s potential merger with Sky, Nasser said that 21st Century Fox’s board was aware of O’Reilly’s settlements, and some wanted to get rid of him as soon as they found out. Despite their wishes, they couldn’t do anything about it, according to the CMA’s summary of the hearing. This is because a clause in the host’s contract said that his employment could not be terminated due to harassment allegations unless there was a court decision against him. That means that no matter how many out-of-court settlements took place, including the $32 million one with legal analyst Lis Wiehl, Fox was barred from firing O’Reilly for them.
Of course, this doesn’t explain why Fox renewed O’Reilly’s contract when the old one expired. Fox did, however, give themselves some much-needed leverage in the new contract. The old clause was gone, and the company gave themselves the ability to get rid of O’Reilly based on allegations alone. When The New York Times published a report that said O’Reilly and Fox had paid settlements to five different women for complaints against him, the company was then able to part ways with O’Reilly, thanks to the new clause.
lawnewz.com
So Fox signed a contract with someone giving them the freedom to sexually harass women? If Fox makes employees sign something about settling, then protect oreilly through contract, you effectively create a sexual assault playground, right?
|
2774 Posts
Chainsaw bayonet is a brilliant way to screw with the weight balance of your rifle. Sounds metal though.
|
On November 09 2017 08:25 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2017 07:35 Nevuk wrote:Well, that explains a bit When Bill O’Reilly was in the middle of settling sexual harassment claims against him, he managed to hold onto his job for a while, despite his employer knowing about the allegations. According to 21st Century Fox Independent Director Jacques Nasser, that’s because O’Reilly’s contract at the time protected him from just such a situation.
At a hearing before the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) dealing with Fox’s potential merger with Sky, Nasser said that 21st Century Fox’s board was aware of O’Reilly’s settlements, and some wanted to get rid of him as soon as they found out. Despite their wishes, they couldn’t do anything about it, according to the CMA’s summary of the hearing. This is because a clause in the host’s contract said that his employment could not be terminated due to harassment allegations unless there was a court decision against him. That means that no matter how many out-of-court settlements took place, including the $32 million one with legal analyst Lis Wiehl, Fox was barred from firing O’Reilly for them.
Of course, this doesn’t explain why Fox renewed O’Reilly’s contract when the old one expired. Fox did, however, give themselves some much-needed leverage in the new contract. The old clause was gone, and the company gave themselves the ability to get rid of O’Reilly based on allegations alone. When The New York Times published a report that said O’Reilly and Fox had paid settlements to five different women for complaints against him, the company was then able to part ways with O’Reilly, thanks to the new clause.
lawnewz.com So Fox signed a contract with someone giving them the freedom to sexually harass women? If Fox makes employees sign something about settling, then protect oreilly through contract, you effectively create a sexual assault playground, right?
I'm surprised the GC didn't have an aneurysm over that.
|
On November 09 2017 08:48 Nixer wrote:
Chainsaw bayonet is a brilliant way to screw with the weight balance of your rifle. Sounds metal though.
![[image loading]](http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/gearsofwar/images/b/b6/UELancerTransparent.png/revision/latest?cb=20160416180747)
http://gearsofwar.wikia.com/wiki/Mark_2_Lancer_Assault_Rifle
It's an interesting weapon.
Probably completely impractical and little more effective than just a bayonet, but cool regardless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
