ElJeffe

Badgers

About

Username
ElJeffe
Joined
Visits
3,524
Last Active
Roles
Moderator, , ClubPA
Points
33,530
Badgers
27
Hello, you may now embed "gifv" simply by pasting the link (same as youtube). Enjoy!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

ElJeffe mod

About

Username
ElJeffe
Joined
Visits
3,524
Last Active
Roles
Moderator, , ClubPA
Points
33,530
Badgers
27
  • Re: The Unrated, Extended Cut [movies] thread (with Alternate Ending)

    I will not tolerate people saying negative things about Office Space, and that includes Mike Judge.
    PreacherDracomicronMulletudeTomantaHarry Dresden
  • Re: So, it is time to talk about [Gun Control in the United States] yet?

    Well, I said above that I specifically do value liberty, I just also value actual people more. I think emotion is important, because it informs empathy, and empathy is critical to living in society with other people.

    One thing I really appreciate about my current job is that I get to see both the big picture and the minutae of policy at the same time. Running a cost analysis of providing reimbursements for crime scene cleanup, for example, I can see the tangible monetary cost of handling 40,000 claims that potentially need help paying for that sort of thing. Bump up the maximum payout from a thousand bucks to two thousand bucks, and I can see how much it's expected to cost us.

    BUT!

    But I also get to see that one person who, for reasons that would give you fucking nightmares, doesn't need a thousand dollars, or two thousand dollars. He needs twenty six thousand dollars.

    Now, think about that from their perspective. Imagine what it's like being the person who needs to spend the cost of down payment on a house to clean up several gallons of bad fucking mojo. Now imagine being the person who gets to tell them: sorry, but no. We could help you, sure, but spending that money goes against policy. But don't be too sad! That money, instead, is going to let us lower taxes on 30 million people by a nickel! Needs of the many, and whatnot!

    And that is something that is super fucking important to consider. Because emotional considerations are important, inasmuch as they are what we are made of. If you would find it difficult to tell a widow that her husband died so that a bunch of people could reload their handguns less frequently while at the shooting range, maybe that's not an indication of silly emotions that need to be shoved aside. Maybe that, instead, tells you something about the relative merits of abstract liberty versus actual human life.

    Emotions aren't the only thing, but they are sure as fuck a thing.
    ElJeffe at
    The EnderAngelHedgiePreacherLanzjmcdonaldmrondeauQuidAresProphetArbitraryDescriptorPhillishereKetar
  • Re: [Crunchy Roll] - Suggestions and Discussions and the Shared Love of Upskirt Pantsu Shots

    Nope.
    QuidSolomaxwell6
  • Re: So, it is time to talk about [Gun Control in the United States] yet?

    spool32 wrote: »
    Well, just look at how much trouble we seem to have with prosecuting the police. People get injured and property destroyed by mistaken no-knock raids pretty regularly and it's difficult / impossible to get any compensation. Hell, it's a legal fight to get the State to compensate you for mistakenly convicting you of a crime and putting you in jail for a decade or so. It's surprisingly hard to get justice from the State when the State caused the harm.

    And yeah, cause at three removes isn't terribly compelling. In your original example we were talking about death by badger (essentially Act of God) that would have been preventable but for the direct impact of a decision to restrict a liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. It's especially well suited to this discussion! I feel like the only example closer to the source would be "murdered by the cops for no reason", and we have a great examples of what that sort of thing does to the fabric of society - Kent State. Honestly we have a lot of these examples.

    It's also hard to get a private citizen to recompense someone after inflicting harm. It usually involves suing them, hoping your lawyer was more expensive than theirs, getting a favorable judgement, waiting out the appeal, and then hoping they actually bother to pay you once the judgement comes down.

    As to harm at three removes, fine: the lead is replaced with a different material you have a rare allergy to, and you die as a direct result of the new paint regulations. Better? I don't much see the difference; dead is dead, and math is a thing. Unintended consequences happen, is my point. Often predictably.

    See, I think the impasse is that "dead is dead" thing that you seem to regard less if it occurs due to a regulation versus due to lack of a regulation. Restricting, say, a kind of handgun might cost 100 lives but save another 500. And according to your calculus, those 100 are the more important, because Second Amendment.

    I think all the extra deaths you get, sans regulation, are kind of important! And it is probably a cold comfort when you go up to a person and tell them, "Okay, yes, your husband is dead, his children fatherless. But! A million people somewhere have the right to purchase a gun they technically have no interest in buying. Freedom!"

    Abstract liberty is great. But do you know who has even less liberty than a man barred from buying a specific subgenre of firearm? A person who was murdered by that firearm.
    jmcdonaldPhillishereQuid
  • Re: So, it is time to talk about [Gun Control in the United States] yet?

    jmcdonald wrote: »
    jmcdonald wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Basically, the "if we cower more, maybe the issue will go away" crowd is asking us not only to ignore one of the Top 20 causes of death in the country, but also one of the few (along with suicides and auto accidents) that actually can be directly alleviated by good government policy.* It also puts the "Statistically, you are safe.." in a weird light, since we certainly don't say that about the other top causes of death.

    Policy has been alleviating it though. Since 1993 gun homicides have dropped 49% in the US. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

    Violent crime in general is down. That said, the suicide rate has barely budged, and the rate of mass shootings has tripled since 2011.


    That article is an interesting use of data. The calendar map that's been posted a few times seems to be using the method James Allen Fox uses, 4 or more people killed, to say that mass shootings are out of control while Fox is using the same method to say mass shootings are consistent and haven't actually increased. The article chooses to discard domestic violence-related mass shootings which Fox and the calendar map use and only counts public mass shooting/spree killing incidents to say that they're happening more frequently.

    We don't have a definitive view of it because of reasons shown. To me the numbers are skewed the same way we have changed our definition of terrorist as of late.

    It seems the FBI uses Fox's method though.

    http://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence-facts/mass-shootings-rare-united-states
    As Brad Plumer explained, they were just looking at different numbers than Fox, and Mother Jones's numbers excluded certain types of mass shootings. "Fox is looking at all mass shootings involving four or more victims — that's the standard FBI definition," Plumer wrote. "Mother Jones, by contrast, had a much more restrictive definition, excluding things like armed robbery or gang violence."

    Note: shootings aren't deaths, and include the gunman shooting himself or the police shooting him.

    So what? That makes it OK?

    Well, you only got shot!

    Well, kinda. Shootings do include injuries so minor that you can literally put a smiley face band-aid on them and it will be all better. It really ranges the full spectrum between funny stories and injuries unsurvivable even with immediate medical attention.

    Specifically, the minor injuries tend to be fragmentation related injuries. Bullets tend to kick up a lot of stuff, and it often results in superficial injuries. Direct hits can still be comparatively minor to a worst case, but do almost always require experienced medical intervention.

    The reason that's relevant is that all murders are approximately equal, whereas violent crime that results in injuries can range from trivial but still morally wrong to permanently crippling, and everything in-between, so the severity is relevant to deciding how bad it was.

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I don't give a damn about the delineation between "trivial" and "nontrivial" injuries that are a result of violent crime.

    Additionally, if one is going to argue the potential "triviality" of these injuries, perhaps there should be data to back it up.

    Violent crimes include an unarmed mugging, a glancing punch, beating someone with a tire iron, and shooting someone five times in the chest.

    Not distinguishing between those things is kind of dumb.
    Elvenshaespool32gjaustin