The Unflinching Pragmatism of the LDS Church

[bcuzbcuz]

On 23 September 2016 at 11:42 PM, Calm said:

With the exact same job history as well?  (I know that some difference still remains, but it tends to be significantly diminished in some areas when time working/experience gets taken into account)

http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/archive/women-in-the-labor-force-a-databook-2015.pdf

This report is 105 pages long if you want a comprehensive study.

But if you want stats:

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/womens-earnings-and-income

 

[bcuzbcuz]

21 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

If an employer -- greedy capitalist pig that he is -- could hire equally qualified women  to do the same exact job as male workers -- yet get away with paying them substantially less -- why would he hire any male workers at all?   

You seem to be under the impression that logic steers people´s behaviours. 

I have no idea why people make the decisions they do.

Statistics show that good looking people get paid more and get better positions. Tall people have greater lifetime earnings than short people. Bald men are less likely to gain administrative positions.

How´s your hairline?

[BCSpace]

Quote

On a personal note, my family signed up for a community garden, and we have been astounded at how much food comes out of it.  More vine-ripened tomatoes than we know what to do with, squash, kale, chard, etc.

Add sweet onions, jalapeno, and cilantro and you would never be short on really good pico....

[thesometimesaint]

30 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

Add sweet onions, jalapeno, and cilantro and you would never be short on really good pico....

Sounds delish.

[waveslider]

12 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

ALL LAWS infringe on "law abiding citizens". I've never committed murder. Do we need laws against me committing murder?

How about more background checks, closing the Gun Show loophole, Smart Guns, no internet sales of guns, more training on the proper use of firearms, etc., etc., etc.?

My point exactly! No laws infringe on criminals because by the very definition of the word, "criminal," they don't obey laws. We already have a law against murder! Does that stop criminals from killing each other? Not at all. We already have gun laws? Does that stop criminals from shooting people? Not at all. It actually increases the shootings, since virtually all of the mass shootings over the past 7 or 8 years happened in, "gun free zones," were the criminal shooters knew that they could produce far more carnage, and therefore go out in the blaze of glory they want for themselves, before guns can come in and save the day. If the 2nd amendment was upheld in those areas I doubt that there would have been near as many victims. So why on Earth create even more laws that the criminals aren't going to follow as well?....creating even more criminals out of law abiding citizens that aren't following the new, ineffective, law? It is insanity, literally.

The gun show loophole, is 100% fiction. There is no loophole. In order to purchase a firearm at any gun show, they do perform background checks before you can get one. Background checks are being used more than you obviously choose to realize. Gun registration on the other hand, is a huge no no! I suggest you listen to someone who has seen, first hand, what happens when gun registration is enforced: https://youtu.be/Mr9777ugCiM?t=1682 The part on how Hitler used gun control to gain power starts just a couple of seconds after the 28 minute mark, but the whole lecture is really enlightening and all that she says here pertains to what is happening right now in the U.S.. Again instead of making it harder and harder for law abiding citizens to, "....keep and bare arms....," we should uphold the constitution, not further infringe upon it in a breach of the oath of office, that these lying progressive politicians keep trying to push through. I agree that training is a good thing, but the criminal's won't go to training either.

 

[waveslider]

13 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

IS 2016 up-to-date enough for you.

SEE http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records

You have demonstrated that you have neither the skill, nor aptitude to evaluate scientific data yourself.

July, is still not up to date. A lot has changed since then, and none of it fits the narrative that they are trying to sell to the public. Perhaps it isn't I who has demonstrated that I have neither skill nor aptitude to evaluate scientific data myself. It might help if you actually looked at the data yourself instead of just having blind faith in people because they have credentials. A lie is a lie no matter who tells it, credentials or not.

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, waveslider said:

My point exactly! No laws infringe on criminals because by the very definition of the word, "criminal," they don't obey laws. We already have a law against murder! Does that stop criminals from killing each other? Not at all. We already have gun laws? Does that stop criminals from shooting people? Not at all. It actually increases the shootings, since virtually all of the mass shootings over the past 7 or 8 years happened in, "gun free zones," were the criminal shooters knew that they could produce far more carnage, and therefore go out in the blaze of glory they want for themselves, before guns can come in and save the day. If the 2nd amendment was upheld in those areas I doubt that there would have been near as many victims. So why on Earth create even more laws that the criminals aren't going to follow as well?....creating even more criminals out of law abiding citizens that aren't following the new, ineffective, law? It is insanity, literally.

By this logic where guns are severely restricted we should see even more mass shootings. We should take a look at the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and the like where firearms are more heavily controlled then they are in the United States and see all the bloodbaths occurring at even higher rates then they are in the much more firearm permissive United States.

Ummmmmmm......huh. Wait, the data does not validate your assertion.

[waveslider]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So people who only are random targets of violence don't deserve to have nukes in case someone targets their home with an ICBM? Only governments should be allowed to have armed nuclear weapons?All people should have a right to defend themselves from any form of violence, especially since the 2nd amendment is supposed to guarantee that right. Too bad so many people don't want to follow their oath of office in upholding the constitution, but instead want to regulate and take guns away.

The logic holds if you hold it as absolute. It also means I should be allowed to have mustard gas, anthrax, and all kinds of fun weapons of mass destruction. If you hold a more nuanced view where a reasonable level of self-defense is permissible then there is room to discuss what kind of weapons people should be allowed to have and balance personal and public safety.

"Reasonable level of self defense," being the key words. Since when is a rifle the same thing as weapons of mass destruction? If only governments should be allowed to have nukes, then why on Earth are we trying to not allow that to happen to all of the governments. Should we start regulating pressure cookers? How about knives? Baseball bats? reasonably disarming the public is exactly how Hitler came to rise. Is it then reasonable to infringe on the 2nd amendment?:

"Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
U.S. Constitution, Amendments

If you care to look at this amendment, "reasonably," then I suggest you understand it a little better. The first part explains how to have a safety and security. It clearly states the a well regulated militia is necessary, or else it won't remain free. The comma shows that there is no way to have a well regulated militia with out the people being allowed to keep/own and bear/carry arms. Again another comma showing that those rights shall not be infringed, period! In case you don't understand that military and police, etc. are not militia. An armed public can form a militia. A militia isn't controlled by any government, but by the people, who I would hope would want to uphold the constitution of the U.S., especially against a government that doesn't. Every cry to create and enforce more gun control laws only makes me see more of a necessity to keep and bear arms. If being a patriot is criminal then we are no longer ruled under the same country that our forefathers had envisioned when they gave life and limb to create it and keep it. Think about virtually every single mass shooting that has happened within recent years.... They all took place where the 2nd amendment was infringed, (gun free zones). Perhaps instead of listening to the obvious failed source of keeping freedom and security we would do better to heed the 2nd amendment, instead of the power hungry, lying politicians that illustrate the need to have arms, as they remain surrounded by them, the whole time they tell us that we shouldn't have them. Insanity!

[waveslider]

6 hours ago, BCSpace said:

Add sweet onions, jalapeno, and cilantro and you would never be short on really good pico....

You can't forget the lime tree then.

[waveslider]

7 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

You seem to be under the impression that logic steers people´s behaviours. 

I have no idea why people make the decisions they do.

Statistics show that good looking people get paid more and get better positions. Tall people have greater lifetime earnings than short people. Bald men are less likely to gain administrative positions.

How´s your hairline?

While this may be true, it still isn't true that women get paid less for the same jobs/positions as men do. Unless you generalize the playing field to include a number of different jobs, that all have differing pay scales attached to them, into one category like doctor or something. I'll be willing to bet that the number of male doctors who get paid more, are the same number of doctors who choose a less safe, and higher paying, field like brain surgeon or something, instead of a more safe and less paying field like a family practitioner or something.

[waveslider]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

By this logic where guns are severely restricted we should see even more mass shootings. We should take a look at the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and the like where firearms are more heavily controlled then they are in the United States and see all the bloodbaths occurring at even higher rates then they are in the much more firearm permissive United States.

Ummmmmmm......huh. Wait, the data does not validate your assertion.

How about, since you are so quick to point out that there are more than one weapon that can cause death and violence, that you broaden the scope of what you are looking at? "Where guns are severely restricted, we should see even more violent crime." ...... oh ......wait a minute ......it does.

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, waveslider said:

How about, since you are so quick to point out that there are more than one weapon that can cause death and violence, that you broaden the scope of what you are looking at? "Where guns are severely restricted, we should see even more violent crime." ...... oh ......wait a minute ......it does.

No, we should see more gun violence according to your assertions. Do we see that?

[Calm]

WS, More likely, it is not a direct causation link between restriction and more violence because we don't see that everywhere.  In many places where restricted, you don't see more violent crimes and it is possible that in places where you do see violent crimes, you are actually seeing less overall with only some dramatic, extreme exceptions creating an illusion of more violence...or there may be simething else.  Accurate, comparable (as in measures that are the same) stats covering a wide range of variables need to be pulled together to be able to document what is actually happening.  I don't remember hearing of anything like that, certainly not seeing it here in this thread.

There are probably a few more significant variables than restriction of guns that play into level of violence, such as cultural history and how much guns have been a part of that, whether they are glamorized or simply seen as another tool or the overall culture has a distaste for them.  Perhaps guns are both restricted and violence is low for the same reason, a culture that historically highly disapproves of violence at least on a personal and local level and thus has no need for guns (thus the restriction) or even better, a culture where humanity overall like each other and are protective and caring (my cynical side though thinks this is likely not the cause of lower violence for any larger communities, too prone to become a mass of the faceless there, even with mostly good people).  Then there is the variable of availability of guns in surrounding communities to a restricted area such as a school, mall, or college and how easy it is to transport guns from those generally available areas to the restricted ones.  Places where a larger part of the culture also restrict guns appear to have less violence; places where nearby communities allow greater access to guns may tend to increase overall gun violence in the restricted areas by creating an imbalance between criminals and law abiding citizens or overall violence may go down, but on occasion those who are psychologically unstable feel safer in their own environment due to the restriction, plus they have access to guns due to the freedom in surrounding areas and thus they are more prone to take an action they see as low risk (less likely to be killed themselves) or high payoff (dead or alive in the end, they are more likely to kill more people and get more attention or whatever bizarre satisfaction they get from causing pain for others).  If it took more work to get and hide the guns or they were at more risk themselves early on in their imagined scenarios because others could shoot back, the projected benefits wouldn't outweigh the costs.

I am not that familiar with the stats and research, but given human behaviour I don't see it as so simple a picture in either what is going on or how to solve it, but I suspect that there is a larger critical size the restricted area needs to be to raise the level of accessibility to guns to at least 'difficult to get' before restriction makes a positive impact on the extreme cases of psychologically disturbed individuals.  Otoh, wider spread, but less mentally unbalanced crimes might be affected pretty quickly because these people judge any interaction with law enforcement as a significantly higher cost.

[The Nehor]

57 minutes ago, waveslider said:

"Reasonable level of self defense," being the key words. Since when is a rifle the same thing as weapons of mass destruction? If only governments should be allowed to have nukes, then why on Earth are we trying to not allow that to happen to all of the governments. Should we start regulating pressure cookers? How about knives? Baseball bats? reasonably disarming the public is exactly how Hitler came to rise. Is it then reasonable to infringe on the 2nd amendment?:

No, that is not how Hitler came to power. Some idiot on the internet found out that Hitler restricted guns when he was in power and came to the inane conclusion that he came to power because of it. He came to power because his thugs beat up the opposing thugs more in the elections and he was genuinely seen as a ray of hope. The gun control came after he took power and had liquidated his thugs as an embarrassment. He held power because he was generally respected. If the German people had guns there is no evidence they would have risen up.

I did not say that weapons of mass destruction are the same thing as a rifle. I was pointing out that your absolutist stance suggested that if self-defense in all cases cannot be infringed then your options for weapons cannot be infringed? I did not say all governments should have nukes. I trust them more then private citizens with nukes. We usually call those people terrorists. We call a lot of private citizens with guns that too.

1 hour ago, waveslider said:

"Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
U.S. Constitution, Amendments

If you care to look at this amendment, "reasonably," then I suggest you understand it a little better. The first part explains how to have a safety and security. It clearly states the a well regulated militia is necessary, or else it won't remain free. The comma shows that there is no way to have a well regulated militia with out the people being allowed to keep/own and bear/carry arms. Again another comma showing that those rights shall not be infringed, period! In case you don't understand that military and police, etc. are not militia. An armed public can form a militia. A militia isn't controlled by any government, but by the people, who I would hope would want to uphold the constitution of the U.S., especially against a government that doesn't. Every cry to create and enforce more gun control laws only makes me see more of a necessity to keep and bear arms. If being a patriot is criminal then we are no longer ruled under the same country that our forefathers had envisioned when they gave life and limb to create it and keep it. Think about virtually every single mass shooting that has happened within recent years.... They all took place where the 2nd amendment was infringed, (gun free zones). Perhaps instead of listening to the obvious failed source of keeping freedom and security we would do better to heed the 2nd amendment, instead of the power hungry, lying politicians that illustrate the need to have arms, as they remain surrounded by them, the whole time they tell us that we shouldn't have them. Insanity!

Actually militias are often controlled by the government. Often militias in the last few centuries are civilian personnel called up to military duty to supplement the regular army. Calling up the militia is often a political act. Our military reserve personnel are a rough equivalent to an 18th century militia. At the time the Constitution was written most European nations had a militia to call up. On the frontiers of the US militias existed and could be called up by local political leaders to deal with problems (native Americans, unrest, etc.)

The word is also used for paramilitary organizations that are usually rebellious against the government they live under but I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers were telling people to become stateless enemies and rebels against the government they created. They certainly did not join such militias 'just in case'.

As to the Second Amendment you seem to be relying on the Founding Fathers with an argument they would not have seen. The Second Amendment was written as a check on the federal military. The reason it is there is that people were afraid the States could be prey to a national army. The state they are talking about were the actual states. For almost 200 years the Second Amendment was viewed as protecting the right to bear arms only for military purposes and that while it limited the powers of the federal government it DID NOT apply to state and local governments. It was not until 2008 with a 5 to 4 vote that what some here might call 'activist judges' declared that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a handgun for self-defense. So don't appeal to the Founding Fathers for your modern 90s NRA interpretation of the amendment. If the Founders were for that they were strangely quiet on it.

Some more history. From the the Bill of Rights proposed in 1788 in Virginia:

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Sound familiar? That and similar statutes are where the 2nd Amendment came from. It was an indictment of standing armies as dangerous to liberty and that the militia they envisioned was a kind of citizenship militia only called up in case of emergency and that such a milita and any army should be strictly controlled by the civil government. There goes your "stateless militias being what they were talking about" theory.

I have no real opposition to firearms. I think some are reasonable for self-defense and hunting and sport shooting and whatever. I also believe that federal, state, and local governments have the right and power to restrict firearms as needed to fit local, state, or national circumstances.

You should also stop listening to talk radio if you want to stop being stirred up to hatred against your fellow man.

[waveslider]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, we should see more gun violence according to your assertions. Do we see that?

Yes, and we will if they try to enforce more gun restricting laws in the U.S. since there are already more than 300 million guns here already. As the gun numbers decline so do the gun violence in crimes, but it is hard to get criminals to give up their guns that they already have. Stats all show an increase in violent crime each and every time guns are restricted. The criminals use whatever weapons they get their hands on, and when they aren't threatened they commit more crimes because they don't have to worry about getting shot and killed. It's really a no brainer. How easy is it to go and violently rob an elderly person? How easy is it to do that same thing if people have guns all within shouting distance, if the elderly person doesn't already have their own gun? Look at how even the playing field gets with only one old guy with a gun: https://youtu.be/dwrgvqlc8DA You have got to ask yourself, what would have happened if the police were called? What would have happened if they actually arrived before the robbers in this video finished what they were doing and left? Another hostage situation? More murders of innocent victims.

I think we all need to wake up a little more from our apathy and realize that if we give up our guns, and instead try to call other people with guns to come and save us, they will usually get there in time to draw a chalk line around your dead bodies. It sounds crazy to me that we need to give up guns, but still need to get guns to come over and save us. How does that make any rational sense?

 

[waveslider]

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, that is not how Hitler came to power. Some idiot on the internet found out that Hitler restricted guns when he was in power and came to the inane conclusion that he came to power because of it.

Okay, let me rephrase that. Hilter successfully over reached and gained his tyrannical power, by creating and enforcing gun laws. Unless an eye witness of exactly how he did it is considered, "Some idiot on the internet," I think you need to learn something here. Kitty Werthmann is not some idiot, she watched it first hand.

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If the German people had guns there is no evidence they would have risen up.

The German people were only part of who he enforced gun laws upon. Kitty watched what happened in Austria, not Germany, as Hitler enacted many of the same progressive liberal agendas that are at play right here in the good ol' U.S.A., right now.

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I trust them more then private citizens....

Here in lies where we differ. While I don't trust private citizens with nukes, I don't trust governments with them any more than private citizens. As a matter of fact I trust private citizens to do the right things more often than I trust our government to do so. If our government actually followed the constitution I would gain some level of trust for it, but from what I have seen it do since I have started to watch and study it, and history, I have seen an increasingly more and more corrupt system creeping into a once great system.

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The word is also used for paramilitary organizations that are usually rebellious against the government they live under but I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers were telling people to become stateless enemies and rebels against the government they created. They certainly did not join such militias 'just in case'.

If they didn't have this in mind then why did they write this, as a founding document?:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
(Declaration of Independence)

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

For almost 200 years the Second Amendment was viewed as protecting the right to bear arms only for military purposes and that while it limited the powers of the federal government it DID NOT apply to state and local governments.

When I read the constitution it looks like it does apply to state and local governments:

"......This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding......."
(U.S. Constitution, Article 6)

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Sound familiar? That and similar statutes are where the 2nd Amendment came from. It was an indictment of standing armies as dangerous to liberty and that the militia they envisioned was a kind of citizenship militia only called up in case of emergency and that such a milita and any army should be strictly controlled by the civil government. There goes your "stateless militias being what they were talking about" theory.

My position is that we are allowed to keep and bear arms period, not only for stateless militias but so we can form militias if necessary. I don't see anything saying in either statement about the right to keep and bear arms as to meaning only those who are in militias, rather I see that these rights are there so that these militias can be formed as needed and dispersed when not necessary at the time. Either way the citizen has that right, regardless of corrupt judges who don't choose to see the obvious.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You should also stop listening to talk radio if you want to stop being stirred up to hatred against your fellow man.

I don't listen to talk radio. Heck I don't even watch T.V.. I actually think for myself, which seems unheard of for most of the majority of Americans, who just blindly follow authority figures no matter what they say, just because they have some form of alleged authority that is recognized by the masses.

 

[thesometimesaint]

10 hours ago, waveslider said:

July, is still not up to date. A lot has changed since then, and none of it fits the narrative that they are trying to sell to the public. Perhaps it isn't I who has demonstrated that I have neither skill nor aptitude to evaluate scientific data myself. It might help if you actually looked at the data yourself instead of just having blind faith in people because they have credentials. A lie is a lie no matter who tells it, credentials or not.

That is the most imaginative argument I've read in a long time. Tell me when your are sick do you ask a doctor or the average guy on the street about your illness?

Edited September 26, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is the most imaginative argument I've read in a long time. Tell me when your are sick do you ask a doctor or the average guy on the street about your illness?

Now you are just getting silly. Most of the times I get sick, which is maybe once every three or four years, I just eat right, get lots of rest and continue to drink a lot of water, which I do every single day anyway. If I were to get something more serious, I would never just go to one doctor, but to a few to at least get a few different opinions. When I was a kid, I fell victim to a quack doctor and had a botched surgery. I found out the hard way that it isn't wise to just go to one doctor, ever, for something serious. There has been many times when I have walked into a doctor's office and have correctly, already diagnosed what was wrong, with either my children or myself. The doctors are usually pretty impressed and even astonished on occasion, but it is only a matter of doing your own homework. Like I said there is no excuse to be ignorant when we have the internet at our fingertips.

[bcuzbcuz]

15 hours ago, waveslider said:

Yes, and we will if they try to enforce more gun restricting laws in the U.S. since there are already more than 300 million guns here already. As the gun numbers decline so do the gun violence in crimes, but it is hard to get criminals to give up their guns that they already have. Stats all show an increase in violent crime each and every time guns are restricted. The criminals use whatever weapons they get their hands on, and when they aren't threatened they commit more crimes because they don't have to worry about getting shot and killed. It's really a no brainer. How easy is it to go and violently rob an elderly person? How easy is it to do that same thing if people have guns all within shouting distance, if the elderly person doesn't already have their own gun? Look at how even the playing field gets with only one old guy with a gun: https://youtu.be/dwrgvqlc8DA You have got to ask yourself, what would have happened if the police were called? What would have happened if they actually arrived before the robbers in this video finished what they were doing and left? Another hostage situation? More murders of innocent victims.

I think we all need to wake up a little more from our apathy and realize that if we give up our guns, and instead try to call other people with guns to come and save us, they will usually get there in time to draw a chalk line around your dead bodies. It sounds crazy to me that we need to give up guns, but still need to get guns to come over and save us. How does that make any rational sense?

 

Surely you cannot deny that the cities and towns of the United States are unsafe places to be. The statistics are very easy to find. Yes, it is more dangerous in Aleppo or Yemen, but the streets in your city centres are not places where law abiding people want to be after dark. And your solution is more guns? Do you honestly think that will work? Do you have any statistics that in any way back up such a stance? 

The US is the most violent countries of the industrial world (maybe Russia is also in on that exclusive competition), but not the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada. Any of those places are safe to walk around in the centre of town after midnight. My wife and I have done it many times. And I am 71, so my size and speed won't exactly frighten would be attackers.

What do you think will actually solve Americas violence problems?

[thesometimesaint]

4 hours ago, waveslider said:

Now you are just getting silly. Most of the times I get sick, which is maybe once every three or four years, I just eat right, get lots of rest and continue to drink a lot of water, which I do every single day anyway. If I were to get something more serious, I would never just go to one doctor, but to a few to at least get a few different opinions. When I was a kid, I fell victim to a quack doctor and had a botched surgery. I found out the hard way that it isn't wise to just go to one doctor, ever, for something serious. There has been many times when I have walked into a doctor's office and have correctly, already diagnosed what was wrong, with either my children or myself. The doctors are usually pretty impressed and even astonished on occasion, but it is only a matter of doing your own homework. Like I said there is no excuse to be ignorant when we have the internet at our fingertips.

You're darn lucky to be alive.

You can find  anything you want on the internet. Not all of it accurate.

SEE http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Martians_Among_Us.htm

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, waveslider said:

Yes, and we will if they try to enforce more gun restricting laws in the U.S. since there are already more than 300 million guns here already. As the gun numbers decline so do the gun violence in crimes, but it is hard to get criminals to give up their guns that they already have. Stats all show an increase in violent crime each and every time guns are restricted. The criminals use whatever weapons they get their hands on, and when they aren't threatened they commit more crimes because they don't have to worry about getting shot and killed. It's really a no brainer. How easy is it to go and violently rob an elderly person? How easy is it to do that same thing if people have guns all within shouting distance, if the elderly person doesn't already have their own gun? Look at how even the playing field gets with only one old guy with a gun: https://youtu.be/dwrgvqlc8DA You have got to ask yourself, what would have happened if the police were called? What would have happened if they actually arrived before the robbers in this video finished what they were doing and left? Another hostage situation? More murders of innocent victims.

I think we all need to wake up a little more from our apathy and realize that if we give up our guns, and instead try to call other people with guns to come and save us, they will usually get there in time to draw a chalk line around your dead bodies. It sounds crazy to me that we need to give up guns, but still need to get guns to come over and save us. How does that make any rational sense?

 

Actually in other nations when gun restrictions go into place there are sometimes a sudden spike in gun crime and then it goes down.

Perhaps this is a personal thing but I do not want to live in your ideal world where everyone has to carry a gun for self-defense. I find that kind of a society repugnant and I think reasonable action should be taken so I do not feel the need to walk around armed. Admittedly I do not now and do not ever intend to.

[Sleeper Cell]

On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 2:51 PM, bcuzbcuz said:

You seem to be under the impression that logic steers people´s behaviours. 

I have no idea why people make the decisions they do.

Statistics show that good looking people get paid more and get better positions. Tall people have greater lifetime earnings than short people. Bald men are less likely to gain administrative positions.

How´s your hairline?

And you seem to be under the impression that logic doesn’t steer anyone’s behavior.  Do you really not believe that at least some of the more successful employers are logical?  

If you don‘t, why not go into business, yourself?  Start out by hiring only females. Pay them 25% less.  Cut your prices accordingly. You’ll make a fortune, while driving all those illogical male chauvinist pigs out of business.  Then bring the wages and salaries of your female employees up to parity (you could also pay them a bonus to make up for underpaying them). You’ll make a fortune and achieve social justice at the same time.  

Those with physical attractiveness and greater height may have gained more self confidence as a result.  While in high school, they tended to be those were given more leadership opportunities, received more positive reinforcement in social situations, played on the football team, and otherwise were members of the “in crowd.“  At least in my experence. This was not “fair,” of course, but, for many jobs (including the higher paid administrative positions)  these are legitimate criteria for employers to consider. In high school, I was the short, skinny kid who was totally lacking in social skills. That was one of the reasons I chose to go into physics -- a field not noted for placing a high value on social skills.  

   
BTW, if you have no idea why people make the decisions they do, how can you be dismissive of the possibility that logic steers the behavior of employers -- or, at least, the behavior of successful employers?