SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the is-it-still-ok-to-kill-zombies-and-storm-troopers? dept.
Trump Meets With Video Game Industry, Watchdog Groups to Talk Gun Violence
President Donald Trump met with video game executives and watchdog groups on Thursday at the White House to talk about gun violence, one of a series of meetings planned by the White House in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., school shootings.
The meeting started with the showing of a series of particularly violent video clips, according to two participants who were there, Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center and Melissa Henson, program director of the Parents Television Council. Both are media watchdog groups.
[...] "This is not a simple thing," Bozell told Variety. "This is not to say that the video game industry is the alpha and omega of the problem, but they have to be part of the discussion."
[...] The White House released a statement afterward. "The conversation centered on whether violent video games, including games that graphically simulate killing, desensitize our community to violence." They also released the video that was shown.
The White House posted the video to YouTube. As of this submission, it's got 53 kilodislikes.
After industry meeting, Trump highlights alleged game violence effects
If game industry representatives hoped their meeting with President Trump today would help change his mind after recent statements of concern over violence in video games, they came away sorely disappointed. In a statement following that meeting, the White House said that President Trump "acknowledged some studies have indicated there is a correlation between video game violence and real violence."
"During today's meeting, the group spoke with the president about the effect that violent video games have on our youth, especially young males," the White House statement reads. "The conversation centered on whether violent video games, including games that graphically simulate killing, desensitize our community to violence. This meeting is part of ongoing discussions with local leaders and Congress on issues concerning school and public safety and protecting America's youth."
The White House statement goes against the overwhelming consensus of the research community, which has shown wide agreement that exposure to violent games in youth has little to no relationship with violent outcomes later in life.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Wednesday March 14 2018, @09:50AM (5 children)
Wait hold on, I thought "omg violent video games!!!111one" was a Hillary talking point. At least, it was in the 90s. She went on a whole thing trying to get "violent games" regulated didn't she?
Funny how little difference there is in actual outcomes of the vote.
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:15AM (4 children)
That was a decade ago, 2005, and specifically was about enforcing ESRB ratings. More importantly - she's not actually the president, and doesn't have a historical lack of interest in complying with the constitution [bostonglobe.com]
More info on HC's history:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/04/21/hillary-clintons-history-with-video-games-and-the-rise-of-political-geek-cred/ [washingtonpost.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Redundant) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:29AM
All Presidents, and indeed all politicians, have a vested interest in ignoring the constitution. Very few manage to uphold their oath of office in a manner not best described as laughable.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday March 14 2018, @03:38PM (1 child)
That was a decade ago, 2005, and specifically was about enforcing ESRB ratings.
And when she was up to that crap I was vociferously opposed to it.
Look at the posters in here who suddenly think this is totally fine.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @04:47PM
Has anyone besides rDT actually said this is okay by them? I tl;dr-ed a bunch of the comments.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @06:36PM
What? She didn't vote for the Unpatriotic Act? She doesn't support the unconstitutional war on drugs (unconstitutional because the US Constitution gives the federal government no such power)? She doesn't support the TSA? She doesn't support the NSA's mass surveillance? I could go on and on, but what you said is simply absurd. Trump ignores the Constitution constantly, but that doesn't excuse the fact that Clinton did/would have as well, even if you argue it wouldn't be to the same degree.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @09:52AM (53 children)
Yeah, with all of the school mass shootings all across the Europe, East Asia, and Australia, I can see how it's the video games that should be heavily regulated and/or banned. If improving mental health care, or restricting or *shiver* godforbid, banning guns worked, we wouldn't have so many mass shootings in schools all across the developed world. [wikipedia.org]
Hell, over the past five years, there's been four incidents with four deaths total in Europe! [wikipedia.org] It usually takes, like, a whole month for the US to have that many! It's those damn video games, I tell ya. Rotting the brains of those liberal Eurotards.
It's sad, really, but the Second Amendment is so much more important than the First Amendment. Once the government takes your guns, next they'll start taking away the other stuff too -- for example, video games, or rights to free speech! Man, I'm so glad they've decided to restrict free speech instead of taking away our ability to protect our free speech!
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:02AM (16 children)
It is not at all surprising that taking away rights prevents crime. Of course it does! Locking every person in a cell would also prevent crime. But we don't do that, because it goes against things we value.
But perhaps there is some way to deal with the problem that doesn't involve further constricting the rights of the population? Like, say, if the media didn't cover every school shooting as if it was the most amazing news ever....playing right into the hands of the attention-starved teenager.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:27AM (1 child)
Looking at countries with no rights, such as the Middle East, it would be very surprising that anyone can come to the conclusion that taking away rights prevents crime.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday March 14 2018, @03:30PM
Yeah, 'cause there's no guns in the Middle East!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday March 14 2018, @01:47PM (3 children)
So apathy then?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @01:57PM (2 children)
It's called no-platform-ing. You should be intimately familiar with the concept.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday March 14 2018, @03:12PM (1 child)
I am not so I looked it up. Wikipedia:
Rationalwiki:
Are you advocating media censorship or are you talking about something else?
(Score: 1, Redundant) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @03:18PM
I'm not advocating anything, just attempting to clarify what's going on.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday March 14 2018, @07:14PM (4 children)
Here's an idea: enforce the fucking laws we already have on the books and close the goddamn loopholes. One schmuck having a bad day can go a to a gun show and...well, fill in the blanks.
How about this: regulate guns as strictly as abortion. Seems fair, right?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @07:52PM (3 children)
There's a literal order of magnitude difference between the number of gun deaths (all of them, including suicides) and abortions per year in the US. You reckon we should regulate abortion down to the point where the numbers are equal?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday March 14 2018, @08:00PM (1 child)
No, O Sultan of the Peoples' Republic of Dipfuckistan. I mean parental notice, waiting periods, and just for the hell of it, making potential gun owners run gauntlets of protesters calling them murderers.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @09:17PM
Ah, you want the regulations similar rather than the death toll. Roger.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @11:59PM
Fetuses are not life. Perhaps when they feel and have brainwaves (third trimester maybe). So in your world don’t count all abortions.
Freedom of religion and my religion says no souls exist. And it is my body. Not yours.
But you also probably like harming babies too with circumcision. Well the males. You at least wait to harm the females til the abortion choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @07:59PM (3 children)
Somebody explain this US gun madness to me. What good does it exactly do to have a gun? Who do you want to kill?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @09:19PM (1 child)
Nobody. Only seriously fucked up people actually want to kill other people. Wanting to and wanting to have the option to be able to should need arise are not even remotely in the same ballpark though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday March 15 2018, @01:54AM
Except, they are, you George Zimmerman, you!
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Wednesday March 14 2018, @09:40PM
Nobody. When I get mice in my house I can't stand to kill them, I trap them and release them in the woods. I carry spiders out to the yard. I dislike the idea of hunting except for by people who actually do it for food. I find the idea of killing any creature distasteful.
Guns have absolutely nothing to do with wanting to kill. Instead, it is about wanting to be able to protect yourself. While civilization does a decent job of protecting you, the police cannot be everywhere at every time, and ultimately in the unlikely event that the unthinkable happens you are on your own for those minutes before someone can arrive to help.
If I am physically the kind of person who is easily overpowered, all that I have that can level the playing field is tools...weapons. If I have none then I am easy prey.
In prehistoric times when the only weapons were sticks, I would have been someone's property and I couldn't fight back. Without weapons, the strong rule the weak.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @08:20PM
There. FTFY.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:37AM (4 children)
If you haven’t noticed, Trump loves straw men. Putin being a real life version of a straw man is why he loves him.
Not that most other politicians don’t also love straw men. But who ever thought the Dems would be the ones standing up to Russian bs.
Back before the first gulf war this jar head ran many a mile singing see the commie on the hill one shot one kill.
Next up police busted some hoes. Murders go unsolved.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday March 14 2018, @07:15PM (3 children)
You haven't been paying attention. Ever since 'Nam, the Republicans have been ratfucking around with political enemies in order to screw the Dems. Iran-Contra, the shadiness around the Viet Nam exit timeline, arming the Mujahideen, and the last 15 years of bullshit in the Middle East...where does it end?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday March 14 2018, @08:56PM (2 children)
Why would it end? Have you any idea how much money there is to be made from starting just a few forever wars?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:44PM
Til our national debt reaches 40-50 trillion.
Then what :)
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday March 15 2018, @09:32AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:52AM (27 children)
If guns were the problem, we would have seen mass shootings in schools sometime in the two hundred some-odd years leading up to the 90s. In fact, most highschools in the nation didn't give a happy damn if you had two or three rifles or shotguns in the gun rack of your vehicle while on school grounds until Columbine in 1999.
So, if guns aren't the problem, what is? My bet is that's when telling boys they had to behave like girls started really kicking in. Prior to that we just settled our issues with fists. There's also the narcissism component. If they'd been raised knowing that nobody gave a flying fuck about their feelings because they weren't at all special, it wouldn't be such a traumatic thing to find out in highschool.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 14 2018, @11:52AM (5 children)
Because everybody know the girls resolve their problems but popping up their guns and shooting, right?
Stoopid boys! They need to be told to behave this way; and it takes a long time until the lesson kicks in, no?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @12:11PM (4 children)
Boys are not girls. What works for one can be extremely harmful for the other.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 14 2018, @12:54PM (3 children)
(seems like the world descends in a quite deep hypo-alcoholemia lately, thus explicit grinning seems to be required. I don't know what's with me lately, I keep forgetting to do it. Sorry for that)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @01:27PM (2 children)
Good term, that. It's not even 8:30 in the morning here though, so alcohol isn't the drug of choice for a good few more hours.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 14 2018, @03:08PM (1 child)
That would explains your slow reaction; however you are getting sloppy - you should have taken care to have inside you, from yesterday, to last for the hours of the morning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @03:20PM
Works in theory but I'm over 40, so it would cause an increase in the necessary caffeine levels sufficient to cause physical damage to my kidneys.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @11:57AM (15 children)
"So, if guns aren't the problem, what is? My bet is that's when telling boys they had to behave like girls started really kicking in. "
Because girls solve their problems by shooting up schools?
The real problem here is that parents stopped parenting their kids decades ago. Either by choice (ie: they're worthless parents) or by force (laws that basically prevent them from doing more than counting to 3 to show their dismay). Add in rules that prevent kids from being tried as adults and you have a great environment for the kinds of shit we see going on far too often.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @12:18PM (12 children)
I don't disagree on disciplining your children but male children and female children are not the same. The physical and chemical differences in their brains necessitate different approaches to dealing with them in general and in teaching them how to function as a decent human being in modern society specifically. Currently we're treating them all as if they were female and expecting them to behave as such. That's a recipe for disaster even without the lack of discipline that's given us a couple of generations of narcissistic little shit-stains.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday March 14 2018, @07:24PM (10 children)
Our boys are damaged from birth. This is all going to sound weird coming from the resident lesbian, but I'm really, really worried about our baby boys. Adults treat infants differently depending on sex, there's the horrifying habit we have of circumcising boys (often without anaesthetic!), and from before they can speak, boys are essentially told "toughen up and deal." I remember watching my kid brother get circumcised, and was about ready to assault the guy doing it. NO ONE messes with my little siblings, dammit.
We don't seem to let them express themselves properly, and we're also closing off the improper avenues of expression. Frankly I'm surprised *more* boys don't become anything from bullies to serial killers. And now with the economy so fucked that even with BOTH parents working there's barely enough to go around, who are the role models for them?
I don't know what the solution to this is, but I do have one proposal: redirect the extra energy and concentration into building things. Bring back wood shop, make trade and vocational programs honorable life paths, teach our boys to be proud of hands that create and heal rather than dominate and destroy. Get men into nursing, pediatric practice, pharmacology, teaching. My brother turned out okay as a musician, but there are lots of other boys and men who aren't so lucky.
...and, because it needs to be said, this is mostly other men doing this to them. Name me the (sane) woman who would ever think of cutting up her baby, flesh of her flesh and blood of her blood, like that. No, this crap stems from a 19th-century military-industrial complex and a social-efficiency curriculum in schools designed to churn out worker ants and cannon fodder.
My girlfriend doesn't want children, and if we ever adopt, it's likely to be a girl. But if it is a boy, you can be sure we'll be keeping all the above in mind. All our babies are precious, the only innocent people in the world, and we need to protect and strengthen them as they grow.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @08:30PM (1 child)
Never gonna happen. We already spend too much on those lazy, shiftless. future drug addicts and criminals (and we know they are or they wouldn't be too poor to go to private school) in the public schools.
What we really need is to get rid of all taxes and let the free market take care of this. It is regrettable that two or three children won't have their potential wasted, but stealing from the deserving folks to pay for worthless (read: poor) takers is causing serious problems in our society.
Instead of public schools, we should have workhouses for the undeserving, starting at around age seven or so. I don't understand why it's not obvious to everyone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @08:52PM
Wow. Poe's Law is getting another work out today.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @08:45PM (5 children)
A fair bit of what you have to say I don't disagree with. You are, however, coming at it from a woman's perspective. This is perfectly reasonable being as you in fact are a woman but reasonable is not necessarily the same thing as correct. There are a whole heaping pile of evolutionary reasons, both biological and cultural, that men think and behave differently than women. Given that these traits were in the men most successful in propagating their genes throughout the world, I'm inclined to think moving away from them is not a good idea without an extremely good reason.
As for specific areas of contention...
That's just you lacking the proper perspective. Teaching boys to be emotionally strong does not make them mentally ill unless you're using the female brain as your standard, which you most assuredly should not. Visibly expressing an emotion is no more objectively mentally healthy than simply feeling it without advertising it. It's just different. Ditto allowing your emotions to override rational thought. Actually, there's a very good argument to be made that you have mental health issues if you do allow your emotions to override rational thought.
I've nothing against creativity. It's a big, big part of what's gotten us where we are today. But someone has to be prepared to do the dirty work that needs doing as well, be it cleaning out your septic tank or turning someone offering you harm into a pile of cooling meat and entrails. Traditionally that's been us of the XY persuasion because we're more physically suited to it and we're more expendable as far as species health goes. But you can't have it both ways. You can't say we need to stop doing the dirty and dangerous jobs in favor of the nicer ones (not even in part) unless you're willing to take up the slack in the dirty and dangerous ones; if they go undone, society as you know it ceases to exist.
I don't think it's a bad thing that women are, on average, kinder and gentler (barring threats to their family). I don't think it's a bad thing that men are harsher and more aggressive on average either. There is a time and a place for both; they compliment each other. One without the other is not as well equipped to deal with life as both together.
On a larger scale, both empathy and aggressiveness can be taken to a point where they cease being an asset and become a liability. We're currently getting to the point in western society where the pendulum needs to start swinging away from empathy or shit is going to start breaking down in a big, bad way.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday March 14 2018, @09:01PM (4 children)
Ohferchrissakes...this pop-evo-psych bullshit again.
You have a problem with the naturalistic fallacy, I can't help but notice. If your standard of good is "whatever works for breeding and propagating more," you ought to stop harping on your favorite targets (Muslim immigrants--excuse me, "invaders"-- and inner-city/poor people, especially black ones). After all, they breed more than "your sort of person." So it follows based on what you just said that they're evolutionarily superior and ought to replace you. Whoopsie!
You also seem to conflate emotional strength with keeping a stiff upper lip. That's only one part of it, and while there is a time and a place for it, telling men to do it all the time results in violent outbursts. People get hurt or killed because our boys and men are not taught *real* emotional strength--which begins first of all with understanding precisely what it is they're experiencing! You can quit strawmanning (straw-womaning?), too; you've implicitly, if not explicitly, said women and "female brains" are overemotional and allow emotion to override rational thought. That's bullshit, and anyone who grew up poor with a working mother knows exactly how bullshit it is.
On top of that, you have a weird zero-sum mentality about men. You seem to think that if more men go into nursing or teaching or pharmacology, somehow fewer men will do construction or soldiering or other "dirty" jobs. This isn't necessarily so, and if anything I'd argue it wouldn't change the number of people in "dirty" jobs much if at all. What it would do, however, is get more men involved in building their communities and by extension their own connections to said communities.
Besides which, we're coming up on the point where we can 3D-print small and medium buildings, and most of war these days seems to be about directing your murderbirds to the appropriate coordinates and dropping explosive Hell, a trend that will only continue and accelerate with the development of drone warfare. Not like it takes a man to drain a septic tank, either. And, you think nursing isn't dirty work? In my observation it's the doctors who refuse to get their hands dirty. It's the nurses who end up cleaning up after the patients who've just exploded out both ends and are cursing them to Gehenna and back through a meth-fueled haze of rage.
Your last line...is insanity. You think, with everything we've seen in politics and economics and finance since the 70s, that the pendulum is winging too far TOWARD empathy? Good Christ, are you insane? It's been going the exact opposite way for over 45 years! Empathy is not weakness; if anything it takes more strength, more knowledge, and more moral fiber, to be able to truly get inside someone else's head and figure out what makes them tick. No, it's weaker to just act on your own and do what the hell you want. You are a tremendously poor judge of this sort of thing.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @09:55PM (3 children)
That's a fine example of both aggression and hostility. They're not the same thing by the way. Mistaking them for such is how women trying to assert themselves in business wind up being called bitches or worse by everyone around them. Understanding the difference mostly comes naturally to men. Women, apparently not so much, though it's possible it can be learned I suppose.
Also, you are aware that you are both more aggressive and hostile than most male children being raised today, yes? I wonder, do you think that makes them flawed or you?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 15 2018, @02:16AM (2 children)
Oh cry harder. If I'm going to jump into the deep and with a bunch of greasy basement-dwelling fedora-tipping bitter incels and all their libertarian horseshit, I'm not going to pull any punches, and may indeed start mimicking their behavior somewhat as a form of camouflage. Ever think about that, carrion-breath?
Or, for that matter, did you think about replying to any of the actual points that were made, instead of whining about how meeeeeeeean I am and why can't I just be a nice girl? Noooooo, of fucking *course* not. That's fine, though; it means you don't have anything substantive to reply with.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by FatPhil on Thursday March 15 2018, @09:43AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 15 2018, @01:12PM
It is possible. I used to frequent this gay hole in the wall bar. It was full of all types. But one common thread was that virtually all were some form of an eclectic hipster.
One of my good friends there was this hot butch women. We always had good conversations and frequently would buy each other drinks. We had a moment in the bar once. But she quashed it. However it festered. We loved the company. And then on day her girlfriend really pissed her of and we were drinking heavily. She kissed me and soon we were at her place. Her girlfriend was home and we fucked like mad. And it was aggressive on both side. We put two hole in walls. She punched or slapped when she thought I was about to orgasm and it hurt and I would go limp and we started over. She also would bite me so hard it drew blood. This was the start of a two year friend with benefits relationship. They get into a fight and we would enjoy wild sex. But it was always aggressive. Most fun I had ever had. Mind blowing. It all ended when she dumped her girlfriend and found another. A kiss here or there at the bar.
So it is possible. Just be wary though. It took me days to not ache. And the bite marks weeks to heal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @09:51PM (1 child)
Considering 98% of Jew+/-ish boys are circumcised in Israel and about 95% of Muslim boys everywhere else, you're basically suggesting most Semite women are crazy bitches. But to be fair (and antisemitic), I'd extend that to the men as well. And the livestock. They breed some crazy camels and goats in that part of the world... Though I hear good things about their cows for some odd reason.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 15 2018, @02:18AM
Not gonna disagree with you there. Jews, Christians, and Muslims are nuts, and the better they are at their respective religions, the more nuts they are. The Middle East has been a source of memetic and cultural poisons for 3,000+ years.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:25PM
I'm going to strongly dispute your claim that male children and female children are not the same for anything other than who is trying to bang who and who can pee standing up. This is based on my experience of working with boys, and comparing notes with my sisters' work with girls roughly the same age.
For instance, if you make a box of what is traditionally girls' clothing available for boys to play dress-up, and don't shame them for doing so, many boys will play dress-up and wear dresses and skirts, no problem. Similarly, if girls know they won't be called "dyke" for putting on heavy work boots, jeans, and a flannel, so they can work hard with a sledgehammer, many will do that without hesitation. If you teach boys to cook or knit, some will happily do that. If you teach girls how to play sports, some will happily do that. If it's hot out, and girls know they won't be getting a bunch of gross comments or ogling, they'll take off their shirts to cool off, just like a guy would. Oh, and about as many girls and boys have hygiene issues, and girls and boys are about equally bad at keeping spaces clean.
Oh, and there aren't drastically different strategies needed for disciplining boys versus girls, either. My guess is you think boys are more likely to need corporal punishment, but that isn't actually true, it's just more socially acceptable among adults to use physical force against boys.
Kids are individuals, and the main reason they try to fit into certain molds is that adults try to make them fit into certain molds. The way you maximize what they can accomplish is by not trying to force them into a mold they don't fit. And gender is one of those molds.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @06:43PM (1 child)
The real problem here is that you're both making suggestions as to what is causing these mass shootings but providing zero scientific evidence that you're correct.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @08:34PM
Evidence? I've got all the evidence [wikipedia.org] I (or you) need.
Come over here and I'll demonstrate. Bring someone else to drive your car home, as you won't be needing it any more.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @04:04PM (4 children)
Guns are a part of the problem. Banning guns could drastically improve the situation -- for example, it worked for Great Britain and Australia. Of course, I'm aware that banning guns is a huge no-go in the US, but not even acknowledging the situation is insane.
You could acknowledge it's a problem, and say that the "freedom" is still worth it. I'd disagree, but I could respect that position. Then we could have a reasonable debate about possible solutions, be it some gun restrictions, or something entirely different -- more funding for mental health, teach gun safety in school, or even just resign ourselves that this is how it's going to be.
But total freakouts and/or absolute denial of facts? I thought that liberals were supposed to be the snowflakes.
You're a moron.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @04:14PM
And another user sees the light.
(Score: 0, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @04:52PM (2 children)
No, it did not. It curbed gun violence only. Violent crime and murder rates were not reduced as a result of their rights-ectomies. Now if your concern is not having to see scary looking guns, that's fine. If your goal is reduced violence and death, it did nothing or made things worse.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:36PM (1 child)
The Australian murder rates dropped 15% the year gun control was implemented, and have dropped by about 45% total since then [aic.gov.au]. Now, we don't know for sure that their "rights-ectomy" as you call it was the primary cause of this, but if you're going to say that murder rates weren't reduced because of gun control, you need to offer another explanation for the noticeable improvement to their citizens' safety. (Also potentially of interest: The biggest drop was in people being murdered by their domestic partner / spouse.)
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 15 2018, @05:24AM
The downward trend existed before the NFA was implemented. The large drop immediately after was due to a spike in the number of homicides from the one incident that resulted in the knee-jerk NFA. Nice try though.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Wednesday March 14 2018, @12:19PM (2 children)
Hmm...
Does the Second Amendment apply to virtual arms?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @12:26PM (1 child)
No, but the first does. This nonsense has been overturned by the courts too many times already to see it as anything but idiotic pandering.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday March 14 2018, @01:34PM
I'm not taking away the guns. I said, let's take away those guns, we'll do the due process afterward. And so many folks told me "no," they told me gun rights are so precious, so special. Very special. So I've evolved on that one.
And I'm not censoring the video games. I'm asking our terrific game industry to look into, what can they do on their own to make things better? Like maybe a rating system. I’m hearing more and more people say the level of violence in video games is really shaping young people’s thoughts.
And then you go the further step, and that's the movies. You see these movies, they're so violent. And yet a kid is able to see the movie if sex isn't involved, but killing is involved. And maybe they have to put a rating system for that. You get into a whole very complicated, very big deal but the fact is that you are having movies come out that are so violent with the killing and everything else that maybe that's another thing we're going to have to discuss.
We have to look at the Internet, because a lot of bad things are happening to young kids and young minds, and their minds are being formed. And we have to do something about maybe what they’re seeing and how they’re seeing it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by krishnoid on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:20AM
Nope -- our government agencies [slate.com], and the evil fake news media that report on their entirely noble, justifiable behavior, have the lock on desensitizing us to violence. As a bonus, I've become desensitized to hearing about attempted cover-ups. Also golf outings.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by stretch611 on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:21AM (17 children)
The NRA pays more money to lobbyists and re-election slush funds then the gaming industry.
That simple fact means that the gaming industry is the scapegoat to remove the heat from the NRA's agenda.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:59AM (16 children)
You lot do love to go on about the NRA like it's some big evil organization solely funded by the military industrial complex, don't you? I guess the truth of the matter, that it's an organization of, by, and for gun owners just wouldn't fit your narrative. The NRA is less beholden to corporate interests than the ACLU is and it preforms precisely the same function but on a different amendment.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Touché) by c0lo on Wednesday March 14 2018, @12:06PM (3 children)
Solely? No.
As a significant part of their income? Yes [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @12:23PM
Those are extremely vague categories, only one of which implies the possibility of outside corporate influence.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday March 14 2018, @06:06PM (1 child)
Poll: 67 percent of gun owners say NRA 'overtaken by lobbyists' [politico.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @08:57PM
Well, yeah. Nobody sane likes lobbyists, even when they're necessary. They're like lawyers and dentists in that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by stretch611 on Wednesday March 14 2018, @01:21PM (10 children)
If you think that the NRA isn't controlling opinions of our elected officials with "campaign funding" then you are the one in denial. And god forbid if anyone goes against even a single idea that the NRA likes not only do they withhold funding, but they spend a ton of money ton convince voter to vote against that person.
Look at what happened recently here in GA... The budget had a deal for a major fuel tax cut to Delta... Delta stopped a discount program for the NRA. The Lt. Govenor, who gets a lot of funding from the NRA, killed the deal [11alive.com]... despite the possibility of Delta moving its HQ out of Atlanta, and even having possible ramifications for the ongoing bid for Amazon's HQ2. Let's face it, why would you alienate a huge business in your own state and possibly kill another potentially huge deal, just for petty revenge against a corporate entity taking a stand for its opinion? If this was a direct cause of the NRA swaying its overpowered influence over our elected officials, I don't know what else it could be.
I admit, I am not a fan of guns... but I am not trying to pry them out of anyone's cold dead (or living) hands.
The problem is that even responsible measures are immediately rejected as draconian.
Let's face it, is 21 too long to wait to buy a rifle? The majority of people I know get wiser as they get older, so is waiting for that little bit of age too long? In FL, 21 is the legal age for hand guns, why is that reasonable for guns yet not rifles?
How is a 7 day waiting period a bad thing for rifles as well? Again, it already applies to hand guns, why is that unreasonable for rifles. A waiting period has been shown to result in fewer homicides because it stops impulsive buys and requires that people actually sit and think about their actions. Last time I checked, many people would plan their first hunting trip ahead instead of doing it on a whim.
What about eliminating the Gun Show loopholes? It is well known around here (in GA anyway) that all background checks and waiting periods can be avoided if you go and buy firearms at a gun show? WTF is the point of having these laws if you can just ignore them? What is so extenuating about a gun show that allows these laws to be bypassed? I can understand not requiring these if you are a dealer buying wholesale from another dealer (and ofc having regular background checks and licensing as a dealer with the id to prove it) but their is no reason for any passerby at one of these shows to get their purchase without a check and waiting period.
And lets face it... arming teachers with guns is a FUCKING STUPID idea. Who needs to bring a gun into the school if they are already there. All you need to do is get it. There is no safe place to store them in a school that can be accessed by a teacher in an emergency. You think students can't break into a teacher's desk? A gun safe? no way would that work; the students can just steal the keys, or break it open with the tools from various shop classes, assuming they can't pick it or break it open with more conventional means. And how much training do you want to force on teachers to shoot guns? I'd rather they spend the time to keep up with curriculum. Not to mention, what teacher with a hand gun is going to stare down an assailant with a handgun? While I would expect some to gain courage from trying to protect their students, a hand gun versus a rifle is far from a fair fight.
As far as courage is concerned... The deputy at the seen of the FL shooting did not even enter the building when the school shooting was ongoing [cnn.com]. The deputy was on the force for over 30 years, he was ex-military, he was well commended for his duties including twice nominated for deputy of the year. Someone trained for that work had a hard time doing it... what makes people think that a random teacher is going to do any better? Lets face it, courage is easy to talk about, but how many have the ability to stare death straight in the face against the unknown that is armed with weapons out-classing your own weapon.
My previous post never mentioned where the NRA gets their funding (or any of my prior posts on SN that I can remember); I do not deny that they get a lot of funding from personal memberships... but if you think that is there only source they have, you are too naive. With the deep pockets they have, they are getting a boatload of money from gun manufacturers... and recently news has even shown that they have received funding from Russia for over 6 years. [npr.org]
Next month will be the 19th anniversary of the Columbine High School shooting... Why is it that despite most of the people looking for a reasonable level of gun control, that our laws haven't really changed at all? Our are politicians listening to the people that elected them, or to the NRA.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @01:30PM (3 children)
That's not remotely what I said. They absolutely should be influencing our elected officials though. They're a lobbying group that represents at least a hundred million citizens. I get that you anti-gun lot want to try to spin it as them representing Big Gun or some other bullshit but that's just not the truth.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by stretch611 on Wednesday March 14 2018, @02:01PM (1 child)
You said that I thought the NRA was a big evil organization funded sole by the military industrial complex.
My reply was to refute that and added lots of facts.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @02:42PM
Adding irrelevant or intentionally misleading facts is not a conversational benefit. Our founders, who owned fully military weapons and even warships, did not feel the need to in any way allow for the limiting of arms to civilians. If you want to change that, you need to amend the constitution; any lesser laws you pass would be unconstitutional if SCOTUS gave a damn about the constitution. Honestly, even gun-free zones should be unconstitutional. Read the ninth and tenth amendments again. They're summarily ignored nowadays but they explicitly state that any power not affirmatively granted to the government is not a power it legally has.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:59PM
No, they're not. They're a lobbying group that represents about 5 million citizens and a few big corporations that pretends to represent the opinions of the other 95 million or so people who own guns. Even though in surveys a substantial percentage of those 95 million would like the NRA to go die in a fire and are demanding increased gun regulations. I have no problem with the NRA saying its piece. I do have a problem with an organization representing maybe 2% of the population having an absolute stranglehold on an area of public policy.
For comparison's sake: Let's say an organization a similar size to the NRA was allowed to dictate a different area of public policy. Say, PETA (6.5 million members), getting the right to set all agriculture regulations, without any consideration whatsoever given to farmers, 4-H programs, Smithfield, fast food restaurants, etc. I'm guessing you'd think that was completely idiotic. And you'd be right.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday March 14 2018, @06:38PM (3 children)
The problem from the other side: Why will you stop at age 21 and a 7 day wait? When the next school shooting happens - and it will to the point of certainty - then will the "reasonable" voices start asking why not 25 years old and a 30 day wait? And instead of bump stocks, let's just make it collapsible stocks that are banned. You can't promise that the goalposts won't be moved again after any proposed changes are normalized and found not to work, nor is there evidence I'm aware of that any of the measures proposed would have stopped any of the recent shootings (though I'm willing to admit I can be wrong).
Keep going along that spectrum and it will be asked why it's unreasonable we don't mimic Australia and Great Britain's gun policies. Then your side - not you - will be coming to take away the guns.
Do I fully believe that? No. But that's what you're up against, and make no mistake that you are up against not just a gun lobby but a significant percentage of the population. They're just not speaking, lest they be branded.
The most prima facie evidence against why not allow older than 18: Raise the age of enlistment for the armed forces to parallel it. Do not allow any person younger than the minimum carry age to carry a weapon for country, either.
What gives anyone the right to interfere with a private sale of property that is otherwise legal? And I'd argue just the opposite: Dealer to dealer transfers should be regulated as heck. Back away from using "gun show." Substitute, "private party sale." Or did you think that 'gun show' regulations wouldn't apply to Joe on the corner who lists his shotgun for sale in the local paper? Same thing. (And, actually, I'm not at all against having to wash such transactions through an FFL dealer and requiring a background check... provided dealers "must comply" with allowing such transactions at a very nominal cost if they want to keep their licenses. Just trying to debunk that "gun shows" are mystical or special when they're just organized ways for non-firearms dealers to trade.)
Like arming airline pilots [nydailynews.com]. What a totally ridiculous idea! [latimes.com]
Show me how that is done, please. Better still, find out how cops deal with securing their arms in places they aren't allowed to carry. (You didn't think those exist? Do research.)
Um. No. If there is an active shooter, I'll take a revolver. If I have time to get it and have it in ready position, I can very reasonably face down a rifle, anywhere within nominal range of the handgun, and do well. I'd do better with a revolver than any rifle in such a situation. (Most especially, if I don't have confidence that one double-shot will take the attacker and not get a bystander, I won't pull the trigger.) The key measure is reaction time - do I have the ability to get a weapon to bear - far more so than its type?
There was a time when law enforcement officers were all-but-expected to put themselves in harm's way. That was part of the risk for given the authority to carry weapons and arrest people. Not sure when that evolved. But the key difference is that the officer is not trapped inside the school - the officer may remain outside. I thought (and can be wrong) that most departments' protocol is contain the area, remain outside, until SWAT arrives. If anyone has a link that the officer violated his department's policies by waiting outside I'd like a link - I suspect he was just hung out to dry, actually.
The way I would see arming teachers working, if it worked at all, is that on a lockdown call the teacher is authorized to draw the weapon. He or she doesn't seek the shooter out, but if the shooter gains access to where the armed person is, they are clear to engage back. The REAL trick is finding a universal way to identify the teacher as a Good Guy... because when the SWAT team does make entry they'll have to differentiate between the shooter and the armed teachers - not an easy trick at all.
It may not work. But I know teachers who feel like if they had been the ones there, and had the means to do so, there would have been less life lost that day. I don't know.
Where I do agree, completely, is that there is absolutely no reason that this should not be treated as a health issue, and see if there are potential remedies by researching it as such.
This sig for rent.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @07:52PM (1 child)
The idiocy of your post starts at the first word and ends at the last. Actually, the stupidity of it is still ringing in my head. I don't know where to start, but if you think a handgun is as accurate as a rifle...wow. Maybe you have been playing too many video games.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @09:05PM
If you think a rifle's as good a weapon as a handgun at close range, you're the idiot in the room.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @08:46PM
What's the point?
Remove any restrictions on gun purchases. It's almost always the the white trash and darkies shooting each other in public schools anyway.
Let them kill each other. Give the babysitters^W teachers bulletproof vests and be done with it.
It'll save us money incarcerating these worthless scum later on. If they had value, they'd be rich.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @07:00PM
Why would you give these deals to corporations in the first place? Especially Amazon. It's disgusting how much local governments are sucking up to corporations like Amazon to get them to build an HQ in their cities. How about helping the common man instead of doing this nonsense? This certainly doesn't help the common person, regardless of what fallacious arguments people use.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @07:49PM
I'll gladly trade you raising the age to purchase a gun to 21 for raising the age to vote to 21 as well. Let's throw pornography and joining the military in there as well, just for good measure.
Somehow I doubt the Democrats arguing that you're not mature enough to own a gun until 21 feel the same about the maturity necessary to elect our leaders.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @06:57PM
The NRA constantly negotiates rights away. All gun control - all of it - is unconstitutional, and since the NRA supports at least some forms of gun control, they don't truly support the second amendment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:23AM
About *yet* another topic he knows nothing about.
In this case it's humorous, and it would be in other areas if it wasn't so destructive.
Oh well.
(Score: 1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:36AM (5 children)
You work hard your whole life, you have tremendous success. You see your country having big problems, so you decide to go into politics. You get elected overwhelmingly, against incredible odds, to the highest, most powerful office in the world. You become the most famous person since Jesus. And they spell your name WRONG!!!!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @11:06AM
Editors have a quota of typos they're required to make per quarter. It wouldn't be fair to them to double the effort necessary per story by making them check a list of exempted words too.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday March 14 2018, @04:35PM (3 children)
and losing the popular vote, sure
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @09:09PM (1 child)
Welcome to the US. We specifically do not want majority rule without some allowances built in to protect the minority from being ignored or shat upon.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday March 14 2018, @09:34PM
Well yeah, of course. But it's a bit telling that the only way the last 2 Republican presidents can win is by scraping through the electoral college while losing the popular vote.
The Republicans are basically the party of loopholes and tricking people into keeping them in power now. But the Democrats picked a really bad time to ram Hillary down our throats, so the kneejerk demographic revived the dying beast for a bit.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday March 15 2018, @12:15AM
The popular vote, as everyone knows, doesn't matter. And I didn't campaign for the popular vote. But I WON the popular vote. Except for the millions of illegal voters in California. I didn't want the popular vote, I wanted the Electoral College vote. And so did Crooked Hillary. Because that's what's in our Constitution. Our Constitution is great. I defend our Constitution, and I believe in the wisdom of our Founders. Who came up with the Electoral College. They worked very hard on that one. They wanted to balance the slave states and the free states. So they did the Three Fifths rule and they did the Electoral College. And it's worked amazingly well. It's kept the country together. And it's given us so many terrific Presidents. It's taken us very far, hasn't it? From being a nothing -- the plaything of France -- to being one of the greatest countries. The greatest, if you go by military, which I think is the way to go.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @12:35PM
Of course the media blames guns after these events, Smith and Wesson aren't buying ad time like the pharmaceutical industry.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday March 14 2018, @12:42PM (3 children)
[Citation needed.] https://xkcd.com/285/ [xkcd.com]
In the meantime, noting that this is a complex subject that soundbiting *will* end up distorting the content no matter which side one is ultimately on (there are scholarly results on both sides), let's look at what the American Psychological Association (2015) has to say about it:
( http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/08/violent-video-games.aspx [apa.org] )
There's a lot more to it than that, but that headline and subtitle summarize it nicely. That same article does in fact call upon the video game industry to include parental controls while noting that there is insufficient research to establish any causation. So, true: violence can desensitize people and violent video games expose kids. Lie: There is a correlation. Double-duh, IMVHO.
Aside from that, this was a very photo-oppy way for the administration to say it is "doing things" about the "violence problem", when it really did not much of anything. Since our President has already more than proven he is not interested in facts, only his opinions, I expect no further positive developments. (Why would "the industry" expect a true dialog - as in a give-and-take - with Trump? Nobody else has managed to do that.)
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday March 14 2018, @03:28PM (1 child)
[Citation needed.]
The President acknowledged some studies have indicated there is a correlation between video game violence and real violence. [whitehouse.gov]
Or you mean a citation to back up a statement from the White House? 'Cause that ain't gonna happen!
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday March 14 2018, @06:01PM
The latter, if you please. I'm well aware that this White House asserts all sorts of things, uses terms of art (like "correlation") most haphazardly, and that if I want to hold my breath for the actual proof I'd better be near the event horizon of a black hole. Or travelling away at a large fraction of lightspeed. While I'd hypothesize that these are the locations that this administration would prefer those who believe in science and precision to be at I'm afraid I would have to decline to be part of the experiment.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday March 14 2018, @06:03PM
Self-correction. The lie is that there is causation implied, not correlation. And I know better.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @01:10PM (2 children)
So what about movies that glorify violence and guns, treat women like objects and only use F language like world is gonna end. Videogames are simply a evolution of movies and they are simply displaying what movies have been doing for years. So how that videogames are different in that topic?. No one is blaming movies and why are videogames only the cause? I think it's not fair. Also movies and videogames have age rating, so if parents are neglecting to review which movies, games their children are being exposed, maybe the root of the cause is bad parenthood. The market is only providing existing demand.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @01:32PM (1 child)
Sounds good to me. When's the new Deadpool movie come out again?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @04:03PM
Coming soon to a college near you.
(Score: 1) by zzarko on Wednesday March 14 2018, @11:40PM (1 child)
Research on bread indicates that:
1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users.
2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations.
4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
5. Bread is made from a substance called “dough.” It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!
6. Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low incidence of cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, and osteoporosis.
7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days.
8. Bread is often a “gateway” food item, leading the user to “harder” items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts.
9. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.
10. Newborn babies can choke on bread.
11. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
12. Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.
In light of these frightening statistics, it has been proposed that the following bread restrictions be made:
1. No sale of bread to minors.
2. A nationwide "Just Say No To Toast" campaign, complete celebrity TV spots and bumper stickers.
3. A 300 percent federal tax on all bread to pay for all the societal ills we might associate with bread.
4. No animal or human images, nor any primary colors (which may appeal to children) may be used to promote bread usage.
5. The establishment of “Bread-free” zones around schools.
Copied here just for laughs...
C64 BASIC: 1 a=rnd(-52028):fori=1to8:a=rnd(1):next:fori=1to5:?chr$(rnd(1)*26+65);:next
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 15 2018, @02:21AM
You can have my powdered toast when you pry the can from my cold, dead, Kricfalusi-esque fingers...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...