Range_This11
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Range_This11
-
The sheer stupidity of college kids is starting to wear me down. Most students can't describe anything without using "like" or "you know" four times in one sentence. Call me elitist, but the democratization of higher education has just empowered more stupid people to think they are intelligent.
-
-
I know this isn't directly related to the question of whether interracial relationships are right or wrong, but it's something interesting nonetheless. PBS's Sorting People Most of this world is just going to end up a shade of light brown, give it 300 years. Already we are seeing the decline of "race" (should be referred to as "ethnicity", not race) across the globe--especially here in America. Self-identification on ballots, surveys, and job applications is becoming nearly impossible for some people, most of whom I would guess are products of interracial relationships somewhere in their ancestry. As far as interracial relationships go, I don't have a problem with them. I think the biggest problem people have with interracial relationships is their fear of another person's skin color and the personality or character traits commonly associated with that skin color; and most of the time that only comes from not understanding the other person. Most people are afraid of what they don't know or understand: "that person looks weird!" or "that person talks differently than I do!" When you break it down, the only differences between people are how they were raised and what environment they were raised in. Anyways, I digress. I think those who do not approve of interracial relationships are either very entrenched in traditional relationship notions or are projecting their own fears or misunderstandings on other people. As always, a great film that pokes fun at the ignorance of those who disagree with interracial relationships is the classic Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967).
-
-
-
-
-
Check it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I might try Goldschlager, as it's basically the same thing, but actually available. Never again. Never. At least I got everything into the garbage. Gold flakes and all? :lol: Goldschlager was one of the first things I ever had to drink. My buddy's Dad had a bottle of it and it was nassssssty.
-
I haven't played in ages since my disk is scratched but did they ever fix the long range accuracy for the shotgun on Xbox? It used to be WAY too accurate (despite being cheap fun) for its own good.
-
-
I don't understand how you can't enforce laws without violating rights. Try it. Think of any situation where you arrest somebody without infringing some sort of right. Holding them in a cell, restricting their movement and who they speak to. It makes sense. I guess I assume that if you are arrested it is because there is already proof that you have done something wrong or there is a report you have done something wrong. If there is proof I don't exactly have a problem with the temporary suspension of rights. It is when the suspension of rights happens before proof is obtained that I have a problem.
-
I don't understand how you can't enforce laws without violating rights. Well that's vague. I stated that my belief is that everyone should have unlimited free speech (with the only other alternative being zero free speech, there should be no in-between). That is a principle. And I don't know why you're bringing up other countries now. We're talking about England. Children are assumed not to have rights (outside of basic human rights) as they are not old enough or mature enough to understand the concept of rights. Yes, and when you comply with those rules, you receive either pay or an education. You also have the right to not work or not go to school. What benefits does the average citizen receive from government moderating free speech? Only the assurance that things are safer, and that is not a guarantee that can be upheld because in order to make things completely safe, the government would have to control every person's actions. I don't even know how to respond to this. You win. Language limits our free speech.
-
I wasn't talking about public forums, I was talking about the Blackberry Wireless service. Anyone stupid enough to communicate about rioting or criminal activity over Facebook or Twitter is an idiot. Missed that. I feel like governments do that all the time, but they only "use it against you" if they have a warrant. Yes, and I acknowledge police probably illegally monitor many phones without taking action. Reminds me of The Wire.
-
Unless they are proven guilty of committing a crime or there is hard evidence (and subsequent warrant granted), there shouldn't be any sort of blocking. As to your other comments, I'll just say this: rights, no matter who the person is or what they have allegedly done, should never be taken away for any reason at all until they are proven guilty of committing a crime. As far as free speech goes, yes, I believe every person is completely equal (whether they are a criminal or an old lady) and should have unlimited free speech. Call me crazy. I wasn't talking about public forums, I was talking about the Blackberry Wireless service. Anyone stupid enough to communicate about rioting or criminal activity over Facebook or Twitter is an idiot.
-
Where this coming from? I'll tell you where: Made up land. All they have said is looking to put measures in place to block accounts where the account is being used for criminal purposes. We have 0 details other than that and its just pessimistic "erosion of free speech" hog wash to suggest that we can categorically say it'll by pass any sort of safeguard or including unjustified monitoring. Heck its not like ALLLLLL these things arent monitored already anyway by the parent companys Police or government agencies blocking accounts that they believe are being used for criminal purposes is invasion of privacy and infringes on free speech. That is a basic fact. Of course parent companies monitor messages and the like (and in all likelihood, police too), but taking any action against it is unlawful without a wiretap/search warrant.
-
Yes, but in wiretapping/monitoring cases documented proof (police reports with strong evidence) is required before a request for a wiretap is even put before a judge. Then the judge has to decide whether or not there is a case to be made or if the evidence is enough to warrant a wiretap. In this scenario, monitoring of BB and other social media completely bypasses those safeguards. The idea that "you shouldn't be worried if you aren't doing anything wrong" is complete and utter hogwash.
