Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Antsan]

I'm not saying that you should just sit there and get beat up. I'm saying that you should only be aggressive as an absolute last resort, because in the vast majority of cases there are much better options (such as running away, or fighting defensively), that accomplish the exact same outcome without putting the other person in a hospital.

What in the bloody hell is fighting defensively, you can't defend yourself without hurting your attacker unless you're sufficiently scary or you're Jackie Chan in a ladder factory

Uhm… You ever actually learned anything about self-defense or are you just applying common sense here?
Because the first thing anyone ever told me was the following:
1. Run away
2. If that isn't viable, comply
3. Only if compliance is worse than the consequences of getting violent, you do engage in violence. You don't fight someone who's mugging you because your life is worth more than both your dignity and your possessions. If you think otherwise, that's your personal business.

The word I'm looking for to describe what you said is either misguided or malicious; you're trying to get rid of the presumption of innocence, it is in the prosecution's case to prove that the defendant killed whoever and that they killed whoever in unjustifiable circumstances. The burden of proof is not solely placed on the defendant, it is not placed on the defendant at all.
You want to fuck up innocent people as much as possible lol?

Uhm, nope. This goes so far that, when you're seen on a surveillance camera, walking towards someone you later harm in "self-defense", it will be used against you, because you were provoking a fight, thus rendering everything you did afterwards not self-defense at all.

You've never been attacked by someone faster than you, or bicycle mounted gang

Here's an article (and a site) you (and others) should read: What If Monkeys in the Martial Arts
Recap: Making up hypothetical scenarios is a stupid and dishonest thing to do, because you can justify almost anything when you make up just enough hypothetical scenarios. Concrete scenarios are what's important and in the situation discussed unnecessary violence was used.
As far as I can tell this site is really good and it makes it abundantly clear that violence is complex. Whipping out platitudes about standing up for yourself or others doesn't do it justice, just like assuming that a counterattack will always lead to less chance of serious injury for the victim, which is just plain ridiculous.

I do agree with SalmonGod that a course would be better than punishment, but that still doesn't make the violence used better.

I.e., do not defend yourself
As is not stated in law books everywhere
The "necessary" refers to the necessary use of force at all, not the scale of force involved m8

And you are just plain wrong about that. The law very often very definitely is about the level of violence involved, where using more violence than necessary has landed people in prison.

[Baffler]

You've never been attacked by someone faster than you, or bicycle mounted gang

Here's an article (and a site) you (and others) should read: What If Monkeys in the Martial Arts
Recap: Making up hypothetical scenarios is a stupid and dishonest thing to do, because you can justify almost anything when you make up just enough hypothetical scenarios. Concrete scenarios are what's important and in the situation discussed unnecessary violence was used.
As far as I can tell this site is really good and it makes it abundantly clear that violence is complex. Whipping out platitudes about standing up for yourself or others doesn't do it justice, just like assuming that a counterattack will always lead to less chance of serious injury for the victim, which is just plain ridiculous.

I do agree with SalmonGod that a course would be better than punishment, but that still doesn't make the violence used better.

Are you really going to claim with a straight face that "the guy attacking you is faster than you" is a farfetched scenario that only exists in the minds of the misguided and the dishonest?

[Antsan]

No, but I am claiming that applying something like this in the situation presented is dishonest. It wasn't even about running away in this case, it was about exercising some restraint. Physically hurting the attacker was, in this case, not necessary and whether he was faster or not didn't even play any kind of role in the scenario given.

But if the attacker is faster than you, I question (out of personal experience) whether trying to defend yourself with violent action is even an option. My experience is that it is not.

[Truean]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/urban-outfitters-asking-employees-free-150613044.html

Intolerably wrong and against any sort of fairness. Boycott Urban Outfitters. Let's see if we can't get that stock price to drop. $31.22. It is an enormous company with plenty of money to hire people but why do that when you can bully your labor force?

Who are we kidding, this isn't "voluntary," because you can bet they're keeping track of who shows up and who doesn't, because they are expressly asking for "sign ups." More to the point they expressly say,

"How: Sign up using this link and we will be in touch with more details. Please do not show up without signing up." That translates into "your name had better be on this list and don't even think of using, 'I showed up but didn't sign up,' as an excuse." Work for free or your fired, slaves!

But hey, the unemployment rate is 5 or 6 percent and that's not a lie perfectly true, do not look behind the curtain.

$60 pair of jeans.... Boycott. Boycott. Boycott.

[Rolan7]

Wow that's nasty.  Coerce employees to work more during the worst time of the year retail-wise, rather than hire seasonal employees.  Temporary jobs like that are a valuable learning experience for young adults, too.

[SalmonGod]

That's primarily an issue with the nature of salaried positions being easy for employers to abuse.  The good news is this is being tackled on a federal level pretty soon.  I heard from HR a couple weeks ago that they're soon raising required pay rates for salaried workers by a considerable amount, and possibly tightening up criteria also.  Of course, I'm sure there will be two sides to the legislation...

[Truean]

What's really sad is that measure, like all measures that benefit anyone who is an actual human being instead of a corporation, is being fought tooth and nail.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/politics/john-kasich-get-over-it-social-security/index.html

Holy Hell, speaking of which.... We're cutting your social security and "Get over it." But, we need more corporate tax breaks, of course and how couldn't you support that.
"He asked audience members to raise their hands if they were far from receiving Social Security, asked them if they knew yet what their initial benefit would be and then asked them if they would be bothered if it were a little lower for the good of the country.

One person said it would be a problem.

"Well, you'd get over it, and you're going to have to get over it," Kasich joked. "

 

Once again, the average person is getting totally screwed, but more corporate welfare.... If we don't pander to the companies offshoring our jobs and lowering the quality of the ones we have here, then all hell will break loose, but those benefits you worked for all our lives are going to be cut and screw you too. Really? And my favorite part "for the good of the country?" Wow. it's patriotic for actual people to do with less, but corporations of course get more and drop dead if you disagree? Screwing you over is going to be policy and yes "young people" it's a slow boiling of you:

He initially said young people would see "a lot" lower benefit, before correcting himself to say perhaps not "a lot," but some amount.

Yup... Screwing you is the GOP policy, unless you not only are a company but have INC after your name and are large and buying lobbyists and legislatures. Nice....

"You're on Medicare and you want me to ignore the fact that it's going broke, you're not going to like me," he told the audience, adding later, "I'd rather have people be in a position where they're aggravated with me so I can accomplish something, than have them love me and accomplish nothing, OK. I'm not there to run a popularity contest.""

Amazing. He flat out doesn't give a shit what you think about him robbing you of what you paid for and what was deducted from your paycheck your whole damn life. Politicians and corrupt businesses robbed us of our retirement system's solvency and we're screwed, and it's awesome that we're gonna get screwed and vote for him BECAUSE of it. Yes, Mr Kasich you actually are running a popularity contest, because that is what an election is. An election is a popularity contest and you're pretty much telling the electorate to go screw itself as, of all things, a selling point for why they should vote for you. Nobody wants to ignore the fact that entitlement programs we paid for all our lives are going broke, we want a solution to keep them from going broke, not an execution of them.

Death by a thousand cuts is still death (of the programs we paid for).

And note how he doesn't give a shit what you think and essentially says you're taking a massive pay cut and doesn't care what you think of him but I wonder what he says to his corporate taskmasters? Somehow I think he panders to them a bit more, which is to say "at all."

We're being sold out.

This guy is that completely out of touch Bill Lumberg boss who doesn't give the slightest of shits that he's cutting your pay and you are the problem and simply need to "get over" it....

People want to elect that, and call Bernie Sanders insane for saying the opposite even though he's the only chance you have at not being screwed?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/08/why-there-nothing-outrageous-about-urban-outfitters-request-for-free-work/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fnational+%28Internal+-+US+Latest+-+Text%29

And of course here's Fox News saying it's wonderful to work for your corporate taskmasters, slave, and contradicting everything we all know is true about coercion and forced labor (you'll be fired if you don't and we know it, they even say "part of the job"). They're just moving towards partial and if they can get away with it later, total slave labor (internships *cough*).

Not surprised. There is everything wrong with this. They can totally afford to pay people, jesus, at least minimum wage for this and there are a ton of people looking for jobs. Boycott.

[Sirus]

I don't buy anything from them, anyway. Hope other people quit buying from them.

[martinuzz]

I wonder. Has anyone ever made any calculations on what the effect would be on (lack of) rainfall, if all cars in California switched from using petrol / diesel / electricity to using hydrogen combustion engines (which have water vapour as exhaust product)?

SAVE CALIFORNIAN CROPS! SHUT DOWN TEXAS OIL!

[Sheb]

California used about 14 billions gallons of gasoline in 2014. That's 1.7*10^17 J. According to wikipedia, you'd need about 1.2 millions tons of hydrogen to get that energy, which would give nine time that weight of water, or 10.8 millions tons.

California get an average of 470 mm of rainfall per year. Its surface area in about 420,000 km², or 4,2*10^11 m². One mm of rainfall over 1 square meter is 1 liter (Metric system FTW!), so we get about 2^14 liters, or 200 billions tons. So the extra water from all those cars would represent an extra 0.005%.

[Frumple]

And that's assuming it all stayed in cali, as opposed to flapping off over the ocean or hitching a ride on air currents off to some other state. Much of it would probably bugger off to somewhere else before it came back down, so realistically it would probably be even less than that in terms of benefit.

[Bauglir]

I wonder. Has anyone ever made any calculations on what the effect would be on (lack of) rainfall, if all cars in California switched from using petrol / diesel / electricity to using hydrogen combustion engines (which have water vapour as exhaust product)?

SAVE CALIFORNIAN CROPS! SHUT DOWN TEXAS OIL!

Internal combustion engines produce water as an exhaust product, too.

[Sheb]

Actually, if my math is correct, you'd release more water from the 14 billions liters of gasoline (which contain 6 millions tons of hydrogen) than from pure hydrogen. It does seem a bit weird though, maybe someone should run through my numbers again.

[Rolan7]

And by converting flammable O2 into CO2, you're decreasing the risk of wildfires!

[MonkeyHead]

And by converting flammable O2 into CO2, you're decreasing the risk of wildfires!

We could literally cut down on the chances of forest fires by burning down forests.