|
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. |
Nice, I might have just won $50. I would call that destroying evidence, but it wasn’t during the trial. I love that so many tech firms has this delusion that destroying evidence isn’t a trick that the courts found a way around centuries ago.
|
All this simplistic analysis is worse than just seeing what an expert analysis says on the topic.
13,000 km. A genuine ICBM. Possibly more or less depending on what payload this demo carried.
|
|
|
How do people with 3 billion dollars not have an attorney to accept service of process? This is how people get served at weddings or while taking a shit.
|
On November 29 2017 06:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 05:41 Artisreal wrote:On November 29 2017 03:25 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 03:00 Artisreal wrote:On November 29 2017 02:15 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:44 Artisreal wrote:On November 29 2017 01:27 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 01:17 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
It's pretty simple really. We both see a Nazi advocating for my genocide I go to punch him, you defend his right to advocate genocide, and get punched too.
You act like your positions aren't antithetical to polite discourse on their face. You seem to think you're entitled to the floor to say whatever you want, well, you can't say fire in a crowded theater and you can't advocate for my genocide in my presence. You want to think that makes me the uncivilized one, you go right ahead.
I do have to give you points for the clever "Kill yourself" line you slipped in there though. First amendment free speech rights, who needs them? I should frame those first two sentences. But don’t worry, bro, if they shout to start lynching blacks in such and such neighborhood, that’s inciting imminent unlawful activity. I won’t let your base stupidity on the free speech rights of citizens interfere with the historical crossing of the line. You wish everybody thought like you, but they don’t. If you’re perpetually aggrieved, and say that gives you the right to punch someone talking politics, you construct your own law. Just excuse your own mischief. Here’s a thought: If you’re sharing beers and a political topic comes up, and you’re willing to punch him or her over it, just tell them to not discuss politics. It’ll work out better for both, and you get the bonus of not appearing to be a man itching for a fight. Given your tendency to call conservatives here advocates of white supremacy, and topics not unique to the black community expose white fragility, you’re just telling everyone to expect violence for their politics. And anyone not in full agreement with your political theory will have the good sense to stay away from those threats. You're sitting here defending advocating genocide on the principle that it will take too long to get from where we are today to actually committing genocide without a shred of irony. As for the rest, I already said that in the first place... But in reality I have friends with wildly different politics. I'm the leftiest though. They run all the way to "voted for Trump" you seem not to appreciate how absurd the ground you're standing on is as displayed by the first part. You're sitting here unaware that intruding on the free speech rights of some imperils the free speech rights of all. And then you make the absurd leap that neonazis protected when they do their stupid marches is one short step to "actually committing genocide." We have laws. You can say what you like politically with great freedom. You can't start killing people based on skin color. These laws have held up thus far. I'm glad you haven't put your stated rules for socking people into practice with your friend group. Casually assuming you're part of all and he's part of some. :Thinking: How much worth is a law that is not abided by? Nothing. By that standard it suffices to have the law. We have the law of not punching you so punching you is fine. But go on please. What are you on about? Law against genocide? Keep on thinking about free speech rights. You even have a sheriff that's been pardoned by your president as a prime example how fucking meaningless laws can be when the people enforcing them are confronted with a non white person. Your failure to see that is on you. Are you really ducking to Arpaio? Was Obama black and did he have pardon power over everyone black and white? You're on fire today! What is Obamas connection to a racist lawbreaker that has been exempt from punishment by your President? Two things come apparent with Arpaio. 1) Racist policies are in place and breaking the law, entirely voiding your "there's a law against genocide" argument. Just because we have a law there's no fucking way to be sure it is enforced when needed, especially concerning POCs 2) It takes a long time of that being public knowledge and a little luck for the justice system to finally fuck him over 2b) then comes the Cavalry and ruins justice for a little diversion during Hurricane troubles You made very little case connecting the free speech rights of neonazis to the presidential pardon. I’d love to indulge your subject hop, because it makes me chuckle and smile, but you really do need to show more connecting strings. Still waiting on the original whether toleration if free speech leads to genocide answer. I didn’t even understand what you were trying to say afterwards.
I don't feel like requoting your post to GH about the us having a law against genocide, thus there being no need for his angst about white supremacists advocating for his death while on my phone.
And my point is that a law in existence doesn't equate a law in practice. Your argument is completely void of any connection to reality where POCs rights are violated sometimes by the actors who are supposed to defend them.
I hope that's clearer now.
|
|
|
Interesting, thanks for the links. Not surprised my empty bucket of mechanical knowledge failed me yet again...
|
On November 29 2017 07:21 Plansix wrote:
How do people with 3 billion dollars not have an attorney to accept service of process? This is how people get served at weddings or while taking a shit.
his wealth is based on how much of his company people think he owns (the company is being sued for massive amounts of fraud by investors, so it's probably near worthless now). he probably doesn't have much liquid, and the $225m that was supposed to be his payout was frozen by court order today.
it's a crazy story. you gotta wonder where the investors and clients slipped up when doing due diligence, or if the company was just that good at faking it.
|
On November 29 2017 07:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 07:21 Plansix wrote:
How do people with 3 billion dollars not have an attorney to accept service of process? This is how people get served at weddings or while taking a shit. his wealth is based on how much of his company people think he owns (the company is being sued for massive amounts of fraud by investors, so it's probably near worthless now). he probably doesn't have much liquid, and the $225m that was supposed to be his payout was frozen by court order today. it's a crazy story. you gotta wonder where the investors and clients slipped up when doing due diligence, or if the company was just that good at faking it.
The whole venture capitol world seems built to have rich people throw money at the wall making tech garbage or get ripped off.
|
To be fair, if my business was advertising pharmaceuticals to people visiting doctors, I would probably be terrified of people coming up to me on the street as well.
|
Ajit Pai accused twitter of silencing conservatives. Its a private platform, but apparently the FCC is now concerned that conservatives are under attack.
And Twitter doesn't silence anyone until there is overwhelming evidence that they are a garbage human. Like years and years of abuse, harassment and terrible behavior.
|
On November 29 2017 07:46 Plansix wrote:
Ajit Pai accused twitter of silencing conservatives. Its a private platform, but apparently the FCC is now concerned that conservatives are under attack.
And Twitter doesn't silence anyone until there is overwhelming evidence that they are a garbage human. Like years and years of abuse, harassment and terrible behavior.
I don't get people who are for the free market and how they get pissy when the free market tells them to piss off
(although I agree that twitter is not doing that)
|
On November 29 2017 07:47 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 07:46 Plansix wrote:
Ajit Pai accused twitter of silencing conservatives. Its a private platform, but apparently the FCC is now concerned that conservatives are under attack.
And Twitter doesn't silence anyone until there is overwhelming evidence that they are a garbage human. Like years and years of abuse, harassment and terrible behavior. I don't get people who are for the free market and how they get pissy when the free market tells them to piss off (although I agree that twitter is not doing that)
They are not free market. There is a brand of conservative that rails against the government involvement, right up until they can use the government to benefit themselves. Ayn Rand reported people to the FBI if she thought they were communist. She was all about freedom right up until someone thought something she didn’t agree with.
|
On November 29 2017 07:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 07:21 Plansix wrote:
How do people with 3 billion dollars not have an attorney to accept service of process? This is how people get served at weddings or while taking a shit. his wealth is based on how much of his company people think he owns (the company is being sued for massive amounts of fraud by investors, so it's probably near worthless now). he probably doesn't have much liquid, and the $225m that was supposed to be his payout was frozen by court order today. it's a crazy story. you gotta wonder where the investors and clients slipped up when doing due diligence, or if the company was just that good at faking it.
The tech world is too busy chasing unicorns and ICO's to worry about trivialities like profitability and corporate governance.
Occasionally it will work out, often it will not.
|
Kinda like how xdaunt is all for freedom, but only as far as it agrees with his views.
|
Nah, twitter has a history of banning/deverifying conservative accounts for activities that get a pass from liberal accounts. They are fine to engage in that behavior, it’s a free market, but then humorously wants nondiscrimination regs for other companies. I don’t consider it some big OmG HypocrIsy moment; it’s just good for a chuckle.
|
On November 29 2017 08:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Kinda like how xdaunt is all for freedom, but only as far as it agrees with his views.
Good luck proving it.
|
On November 29 2017 08:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 08:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Kinda like how xdaunt is all for freedom, but only as far as it agrees with his views. Good luck proving it.
You're not free until you can protest an anthem and a flag.
|
On November 29 2017 08:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 08:30 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2017 08:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Kinda like how xdaunt is all for freedom, but only as far as it agrees with his views. Good luck proving it. You're not free until you can protest an anthem and a flag.
And where have I advocated for the use of government force to stop players from protesting the anthem?
Surely you can do better than this.
|
On November 29 2017 08:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 08:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 29 2017 08:30 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2017 08:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Kinda like how xdaunt is all for freedom, but only as far as it agrees with his views. Good luck proving it. You're not free until you can protest an anthem and a flag. And where have I advocated for the use of government force to stop players from protesting the anthem? Surely you can do better than this.
Well, there was just 5 pages of discussing whether a punch to the face violates free speech, so you'll have to forgive me for missing the transition to legally enforced freedoms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
