 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:24:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The only flaw in that is you can't go back and "undo" things that
> already happened.
Of course, and that's why I'm for gun control and tighter regulation of
guns in the US. "Undo" is hard to do if not impossible when death is
involved.
Slightly different when it comes to someone being swindled out of money.
> Its con artist lying about being a magician, so that they can rob people
> that believe magic actually works.
Well, PT Barnum *was* right - there's a sucker born every minute. The
question is this: How far does the law have to go in protecting people
from themselves?
One could extend that question to indicate varying degrees, too -
protecting people from being swindled out of their life savings (or from
something that would actually kill them) is one degree. Swindling
someone out of $20 for a fake "reading" that's entertainment (even if not
perceived as such by the recipient)? That's a long ways down the scale
of things to be overly concerned about.
> Or, to put it another way, you can't legislate human behavior,
> gullibility, or wishful thinking by making the *outcomes* illegal.
Depends on whether you're talking about criminal liability (ie, the
"beyond a reasonable doubt" kind of liability) or civil liability. Don't
forget that OJ was found criminally not guilty in the deaths he was
charged with, but he was found to be liable in civil court. (Maybe not
the best example). Different standards of proof for different
circumstances is my point.
> pretty useless for "anything" at all, unlike you. But, I would lay odds
> that you are the rare exception, with a fair certainty of being right,
> with respect to the number that have them, and don't either believe the
> stuff they are selling (which doesn't change scamming people with them
> being illegal), or *intentionally* scamming them with the things. This
> doesn't mean you ban the cards, it means you make frakking law so that
> they can't "entertain" anyone with them either, with being very precise
> what that means, and that it doesn't mean, "Charge them stupid amounts
> of money for it, or less, lot and lots of times."
That gets a bit too far into the "nanny state" for my tastes.
BTW, I did note you spelt "frakking" right. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:30:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Sure, but there are also plenty of reasonable people who are religious
>> as well.
>>
> There is nothing "reasonable" about religion.
That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But I'll note that
you're conflating "reasonable people" with "reasonable about religion"
and the two are different.
> than my own *personal* choice of wardrobe. Thankfully, sports fans get
> no where *near* as unreasonable as "reasonable" religious people about
> that sort of thing...
Maybe you don't hang out with a crowd that does that. Try hanging out
with die-hard Utah Jazz fans and tell me there's a difference. I find
many of those hard-core sports fans to be much more obnoxious than people
who practice a religion, or who claim to.
You think I'm wrong, try wearing a Chicago Bulls jersey near the Energy
Solutions Arena here in SLC on game day. Or, for a real treat, try
wearing a Mets jersey in Boston (or for that matter, to a Yankees game).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:24:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> The only flaw in that is you can't go back and "undo" things that
>> already happened.
>
> Of course, and that's why I'm for gun control and tighter regulation of
> guns in the US. "Undo" is hard to do if not impossible when death is
> involved.
The problem is that it works both ways. You're just arguing that defenders
should die instead of attackers. If there's tight regulation on gun control,
you're letting those who ignore those regulations kill those who obey them,
without that same "undo" you're trying to control.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2011 3:34 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> pretty useless for "anything" at all, unlike you. But, I would lay odds
>> that you are the rare exception, with a fair certainty of being right,
>> with respect to the number that have them, and don't either believe the
>> stuff they are selling (which doesn't change scamming people with them
>> being illegal), or *intentionally* scamming them with the things. This
>> doesn't mean you ban the cards, it means you make frakking law so that
>> they can't "entertain" anyone with them either, with being very precise
>> what that means, and that it doesn't mean, "Charge them stupid amounts
>> of money for it, or less, lot and lots of times."
>
> That gets a bit too far into the "nanny state" for my tastes.
>
> BTW, I did note you spelt "frakking" right. ;-)
>
> Jim
We do this on a regular basis for "companies" that are even as small as
a mom and pop outfit, where they have to be actually *selling* what they
claim, and it has to work as advertised. Oddly, the law says that we not
only don't, but, thanks to some morons, and congressmen, though as Mark
Twain stated, "I repeat myself", you can have a multi-billion dollar
"company" that advertises one thing, sells someone else (most of the
stuff from "psychic networks", to homeopathy), and the law *can't* do
anything about it. Apparently, if you are MGM, you can be sued for
delivering a blank screen, while promising a movie, and badly enough
that you may lose your business, but if you are selling "energy
balancing" bracelets, or the like, you may only lose a few thousand, and
have the change the logo.
Its not about nanny stating. Its about getting rid of the damn loopholes
that let them do what *is* illegal otherwise, but, due to some stupid
idiocy, is either not prosecutable, not *really* illegal, in that
context, or is somehow specially privileged, so untouchable. Its about
honesty in advertising, and honesty in delivery. Neither of which means
jack, if all the person has to do is jab on a label that says, "I really
didn't mean everything I just said in 50 TV commercials, the 8 hours I
spent selling it at the convention, or implied with 800 testimonials,
mostly from people I paid to make them.", and get off scott free from
being called a liar, let alone jail time, or a sufficient punishment to
stop it happening again.
And you know the really insane thing about it? Most of this crap is made
and shipped from places like China, Taiwan, and everyone *but* the US.
So you have con artists, or just nuts, selling this stuff, basically
untouchable, as long as they put the proper legerdemain on it, and its
not even benefiting anyone *here*, but some bozo in another country, who
is laughing their asses off at both the buyer, and the seller.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/01/2011 1:36 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> And you know the really insane thing about it? Most of this crap is made
> and shipped from places like China, Taiwan, and everyone *but* the US.
> So you have con artists, or just nuts, selling this stuff, basically
> untouchable, as long as they put the proper legerdemain on it, and its
> not even benefiting anyone *here*, but some bozo in another country, who
> is laughing their asses off at both the buyer, and the seller.
Another way of looking at it is, someone at home is shipping it from
China, Taiwan etc. to make a profit. But that is the free market for you.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2011 4:29 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:24:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> The only flaw in that is you can't go back and "undo" things that
>>> already happened.
>>
>> Of course, and that's why I'm for gun control and tighter regulation
>> of guns in the US. "Undo" is hard to do if not impossible when death
>> is involved.
>
> The problem is that it works both ways. You're just arguing that
> defenders should die instead of attackers. If there's tight regulation
> on gun control, you're letting those who ignore those regulations kill
> those who obey them, without that same "undo" you're trying to control.
>
There is a lot of circular logic going on here yes. The defenders are
dying anyway, along with the victims. There was someone else at the
Arizona incident **with** a gun, who managed to be rational enough to
not pull on, and shoot, one of the defenders, after he got the gun away
from the shooter. Some hot head, with less brain, would have. You don't
get rid of attackers by lax gun control, all you do is put them in the
hands of **both** attackers *and* idiots, both of which end up shooting
innocent people. Yet, the argument always goes, "Obviously, if everyone
has a gun, only the people shooting victims will get shot!" How the hell
does a room full of 50 people pulling guns *tell* how the damn attacker
is, when half of them where not even looking that direction when the
first shot rang out? The argument is pure madness, no different, in
principle, for the MAD doctrine of making sure you have as many nukes as
someone else, so both of you are too scared to fire one. Its not the two
mutually scared shitless fools with a closet full of guns, dressed like
someone from the damn Mad Max film that is the problem, its the other
nut that walks in with *one* gun, intent on hurting someone, who sets
off the whole hornets nest.
I find it amazing that the government can see the *obvious* idiocy of
letting someone like Iran get nukes, and figuring out that the best way
to stop it is to not give *anyone* a reason to have them, including
themselves (or at least most of them figured this out), but when its
some bozo with a hand gun... More = better, unless they are someone that
shouldn't have them, which they can't **prevent** as long as you can
find someone willing to sell the damn things out of the back of a van,
or someplace similar, for $20, in any city in the country, no questions
asked, because the van owner *is* doing it illegally, and just hasn't
been caught and jailed yet. Very similar to the "lets keep such and such
country from getting nukes, or nuke materials, including the thousands
we can't find, track, detect, or have a clue where they went to, when
Russia feel.. Keep crazy people from getting guns **how** exactly?
Enforce laws that already exist, but don't work, better *how* exactly?
But don't dare make new laws, to try to close loopholes, because we
gotta have those personal nukes, uh... guns, sorry..
Tell me, what would happen if the US wasn't a source of guns *for*
crooks in the UK? After all, that is one of the arguments, "They get
them here too, but the cops don't, so we are not safe!" Gee.. Where
from? The gun nut capitol of the world, that is where. A place where
anything short of something you can blow up a building with is A-OK to
own, set up in your house, pointed at the front door, or carry on your
person, as long as its not concealed in places where you can't conceal
it, or you have a permit in places you need one, or you have the right
to have one even without those, and it doesn't make you list was you
walk, do to being designed to take out military tanks. And, I am sure
that will be the next thing some idiot decides to make legal in Arizona,
just as soon as a few years have passed, and they forget about some
government official or other being shot in Arizona, or fudge the history
of the event, to claim it was caused by not enough guns, and liberals...
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2011 6:49 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/01/2011 1:36 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> And you know the really insane thing about it? Most of this crap is made
>> and shipped from places like China, Taiwan, and everyone *but* the US.
>> So you have con artists, or just nuts, selling this stuff, basically
>> untouchable, as long as they put the proper legerdemain on it, and its
>> not even benefiting anyone *here*, but some bozo in another country, who
>> is laughing their asses off at both the buyer, and the seller.
>
> Another way of looking at it is, someone at home is shipping it from
> China, Taiwan etc. to make a profit. But that is the free market for you.
>
My personal feeling is, if a company has more than 50% of its damn
resources, product *or* employees in some other country, and its not
*specifically* claiming to be a resaler (which would not have the same
"rights" as the rest, including being able to muck with politics *at
all*), it can't claim to be an "American company", no matter where their
"head office" is located. If we used that logic on something like
diplomats, foreign dignitaries could claim to be members of bloody
congress, on the grounds that their embassy is on US land, and they do
all their work from the embassy office, without ever going back to their
own country for visits.
But, heh, that's just me...
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2011 3:37 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:30:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>>> Sure, but there are also plenty of reasonable people who are religious
>>> as well.
>>>
>> There is nothing "reasonable" about religion.
>
> That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But I'll note that
> you're conflating "reasonable people" with "reasonable about religion"
> and the two are different.
>
>> than my own *personal* choice of wardrobe. Thankfully, sports fans get
>> no where *near* as unreasonable as "reasonable" religious people about
>> that sort of thing...
>
> Maybe you don't hang out with a crowd that does that. Try hanging out
> with die-hard Utah Jazz fans and tell me there's a difference. I find
> many of those hard-core sports fans to be much more obnoxious than people
> who practice a religion, or who claim to.
>
> You think I'm wrong, try wearing a Chicago Bulls jersey near the Energy
> Solutions Arena here in SLC on game day. Or, for a real treat, try
> wearing a Mets jersey in Boston (or for that matter, to a Yankees game).
>
> Jim
Yes, well.. Those would be the sports "nuts". My point was, when push
comes to shove, among religions, everyone has something they are *nuts*
about. I would argue that, if your claim was consistent, you would be
arguing that the "rational religious" have nothing at all in common with
rabid sports fans, and that *I* am the one trying to equate the
equivalent of evangelical (or some hardline type) sports fanatics with
moderates in religion. Instead, you seem to be making the argument that,
yes, Patrick is right, religious people do have some things they get
seriously wacko about, so are exactly the same as the most rabid, and
extreme sports fan.
My argument is, unlike the religious, you have sports fans that *won't*
get offended by some specific thing you bring up, do, wear, etc., where
the religious almost all have some *specific* thing that can and will
set them off.
Note, I do not consider people that go to church for community reasons,
but are skeptical of, agnostic about, or even atheist about, god, and
religion, as "religious". That seems to represent a larger number than
full blown agnostics/atheists in the US, of the people who claim to be
religious, and is growing in number. In other countries, its just about
everyone, except for a small minority, who bother to set foot in a
church (excluding the ones that do so because it has been converted to a
bed and breakfast).
In short, if you are claiming that rabid sports fans = "rational
religious", I couldn't agree more. I, however, doubt it is what you
meant. ;) lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/01/2011 1:59 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> My personal feeling is, if a company has more than 50% of its damn
> resources, product *or* employees in some other country, and its not
> *specifically* claiming to be a resaler (which would not have the same
> "rights" as the rest, including being able to muck with politics *at
> all*), it can't claim to be an "American company", no matter where their
> "head office" is located. If we used that logic on something like
> diplomats, foreign dignitaries could claim to be members of bloody
> congress, on the grounds that their embassy is on US land, and they do
> all their work from the embassy office, without ever going back to their
> own country for visits.
>
What is the big deal about being American?
> But, heh, that's just me...
It is indeed.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:11:06 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Yes, well.. Those would be the sports "nuts". My point was, when push
> comes to shove, among religions, everyone has something they are *nuts*
> about.
The vast majority of religious people (or people who self-identify as
such) just go to church on Sunday and get on with their lives. Of course
you never hear about them, you only hear about the lunatics, because the
normal people aren't interesting news.
It's been my experience that *most* people who are religious also won't
get offended by something you say about their religion if you frame it in
a way that isn't offensive.
If you walk into an LDS wardhouse and start screaming "you're all nuts,
Jesus never came to the US and you're all LOOZERZ!@!!@!@!@", you'll get a
strong reaction.
But at the same time, if you sit down with individuals and have a
rational discussion with them, you may not change their minds, but you'll
get a respectful discussion.
I know. I've done it. (The latter, not the former).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
