Forum posts made by rembacher

Started piano lessons at the age of 5, played drums as a teenager, and taught myself guitar in my early twenties. Always played more for the fun of it than to be a pro, but I do enjoy writing the occasional song.

Don't turn this into a gun control issue. That's just grasping at straws. Would it have been better if he had bludgeoned or stabbed her to death?

Guns annoy me as much as the next person who wants to see some gun control. But that's really not the issue here. That poorly written 'deadly force to recover property' law is the issue here. It just so happens that his deadly force of choice was a gun.

As another Canadian outsider I will jump in on this. I don't think PA was referring to gun control per se, merely using it as the most obvious example of a law that was written over 200 years ago, which (to the outsider) the American public as a whole is unwilling to change to reflect the times.

When you live in a society where nobody really has handguns in their home, it seems really outdated (and possibly barbaric) to have a law that allows you to kill someone when simply scaring them off and calling the cops is all that is really needed.

Taking a DNA test on arrest, according to the dissent, is a violation of the constitutional protection against self incrimination, and taking someone's DNA on arrest seems to me to be ignoring due process. You can't have your house searched without a warrant, and your body is at least as important as your house. If there is sufficient cause to take a person's DNA the arresting officers should be able to get a court order.

When a crime is committed, the police aren't allowed to just search houses at random. They can't just round up people and force them to testify against themselves. Requiring sufficient cause for a warrant is important because it stops the government from just randomly seizing people and searching them or their property.

Precedents are important in court cases. The important thing probably isn't the DNA test, it's the precedent this case will set.



How is that different than fingerprinting? If using a fingerprint database is not considered a random search, why would a DNA database be? As for collecting DNA from those who are not yet convicted, again, if it's ok to do so for fingerprints, why not DNA? Each is a unique signature which identifies you.

As long as the DNA never gets into the hands of American corporations who somehow have the right to patent human DNA, I'm ok with the police collecting it at the same time as finger prints.

That being said, unless you are on a tv series, DNA evidence solves a very limited amount of crimes. Prosecutors are continually frustrated by juries who expect that every case will have some DNA evidence to make it a slam dunk. But it just doesn't happen that way in real life. It works for rape, and maybe some assaults. But not really for much else.

Are there any openly lesbian governors, or whatever the British equivalent would be? To me, that's the first step. In Ontario we currently have an openly lesbian premier, and if people get used to that, we might one day have an openly lesbian (or gay) prime minister.

I love this response , http://www.buzzfeed.com/summeranne/abercrombie-fitch-ads-re-imagined-as-attractive-fat , it is ten times better than the whole exploitation of the homeless thing!

I'm still confused. What's the difference? If giving the clothes to the homeless and documenting it is exploiting the homeless, isn't this exploiting "fat people" to make pretty much the same point? If anything, this doesn't have the social benefit of giving clothes to those who need them.

I agree that a lot of the anger is over his callousness and his delivery but honestly this whole clothe the homeless campaign is despicable. It's spiteful and exploits the homeless simply so that some hollywood hipster and his followers can childishly stick it to some douche bag that people should pay little attention too. I have bought A&F and Hollister (they're the same brand) clothes for years, personally I like the way they fit me and I like a lot of their designs. I'm sure most plus sized women don't fit into clothes offered by dozens of other brands like Juicy, Louis, Burberry, even Forever 21, who segregates larger clothes to an entirely different store. I do not think its right that people exploit the homeless in order to "punish" a man for being upfront about his business decisions.

I'm not sure I agree with you that this is exploitation of the homeless. To me it seems more like self-righteous indignation, turned into action to "make things right." This is a brand that publicly admits it would rather burn its clothing than see it in the hands of the less fortunate. For those who live and work among the less fortunate, that is an extremely callous thought. Maybe again the tone is wrong, but what's wrong with giving this clothing to those who need it? Who knows, maybe if the company gets used to seeing its clothing on the less fortunate, it will be more willing to donate in the future.

This is an old story which has seen new light lately. In 2006 the CEO of Abercrombie and Fitch made comments about how his company does not cater too fat people because he doesn't want them seen wearing his clothes. The company apparently also would rather destroy damaged clothing than see it be given to shelters and worn by homeless people.

According to the Huffington Post, the news of this stance has seen the brand take a huge hit to its public perception.

Abercrombie Reputation Takes a Hit

Forbes sees it another way...claiming that while it may cost A&F a few customers, the statements will actually increase the loyalty of A&F's current customers who now more than ever will feel as if they are part of the "cool group."

Perverse Brilliance

Unless this #Fitchthehomeless campaign stops that, of course. The stated goal of the campaign is to make A&F the number one apparel of the homeless:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/O95DBxnXiSo

So, what say you lush? Is this a horrible, elitist, exclusionary tactic, or just maintaining a strong brand image? Does it change the way you look at the company, or whether you will purchase from it?

If Obama is right of center, then I'm the Dalai Lama.


Not sure about the rest of what you said, but this, I do have perspective on. If you transplanted Obama into the country to your north, many of his policies would probably be too right wing for our Conservative Party, the party of the right wing in Canada. His health care plan especially comes to mind. The Conservatives would never risk suggesting something as weak as that, it would leave them forever labeled as the party which killed national health care in this country.

I never said "halfway decent". You did. I said "halfway competent". A vital difference which you're not understanding, either by accident, or deliberately. Which is it? And the point, which you're pretending to be too obtuse to understand, is that if it only takes a little learning to circumvent a magazine capacity ban, then what good does that ban do? None at all.

No, I never said "all people who fire guns automatically know how to bend metal to exact specifications", either. You're pretty good at trying to put words in other people's mouths. The point is, when a man introduces himself as a person technically competent in firearms, and I can prove he's not, he should either disqualify himself from the argument, or admit that he's lacking as any kind of expert.

The bridge I'm trying to build is to get people to think for a moment, about just what the laws they're proposing will actually do to fight crime. So far, the answer is nothing. If anyone can come up with a new law that actually will help, I'm all ears.

It's called paraphrasing Nudes. I had your exact quote right above it, so nobody was going to not know what you actually said. To me, "decent," and "competent," are synonyms. If they are not to you, then simply replace the word "competent" in my statement, and you will see what I was trying to say. But then, you'd have to actually argue my point, and not my words, and you don't want that.

On the second point, this is what you said:


Now I know that you're not being truthful about being a "gun person." Because a "gun person" knows that a magazine is just bent sheet metal, and it doesn't take any kind of special machine to do it. Fuck, I could do it right here with a pair of tin snips and a vice. Only someone equally as unlearned about guns as you are would take your word for anything.

I've never seen a magazine, so I can't say whether you can actually see how it is made, or whether you just see the outside of it. In that, I'm at a disadvantage. But, whether or not you can see that it is "just bent sheet metal," that still does not mean that someone knows how to bend sheet metal to specific specifications. (A magazine, which will fit his or her particular gun) If I take my computer apart, I can see that the circuit board is "just metal laid out on plastic," but it doesn't mean that I would know how to actually make it. So does that mean that I don't know how to use a computer? You may think that you have proven that he knows nothing about gun use. To me, at best, you have proven he doesn't know anything about gun manufacturing. And he never said he knew how to make a gun, or a magazine, or even ammunition.

And the last point, I don't even know what to say. You want to make people think, to consider the opposite side, but refuse to do the same yourself. You shoot down every attempt at a compromise, admit that limiting magazine sizes would delay someone, either by forcing them to create a larger magazine themselves, or by forcing them to change magazines more often; and yet, still don't believe that there is a benefit to that. I asked you what you thought was a step in the right direction, as a way to help us understand how we could bridge the gap between us. That's always a good way to get a compromise started, if the other side is willing to move. Which you are not. I shouldn't have even responded to this, knowing that you are only looking to tell people they are stupid, naive, or flat out lying, when they have a viewpoint that's different than your own. But hey, I'm stubborn and reckless sometimes, and figure I just might be able to bite the troll before he bites me.

Nudie: In all reality, what good would this do? Any halfway competent sheet metal worker can turn out a magazine that will hold any number of rounds in a matter of a couple hours. And even if they couldn't, how long does it take you to change a magazine? A couple seconds, if you're slow about it. So any potential rescuer responding to an emergency would have a handicap that the attacker wouldn't have - he followed the law and only had five rounds, whild the attacker had as many as he wished. How fair is that?



Yoda:
So we are going to let him run around with a clip that holds an excessive amount of ammo? Or do we put him off for at least a couple hours? Matter of hours can be the difference in a school full of kids and a empty school. Plus, unless they have the machine to do it at their house, you would figure the owner of the company will wonder why there was a shortage of production in his area and come asking questions.




Now I know that you're not being truthful about being a "gun person." Because a "gun person" knows that a magazine is just bent sheet metal, and it doesn't take any kind of special machine to do it. Fuck, I could do it right here with a pair of tin snips and a vice. Only someone equally as unlearned about guns as you are would take your word for anything.



I'm not a gun person, but I have been around a few shops in my life. First off, I find it intriguing that you went from saying it would take a "halfway decent metal worker a few hours," to saying that you could do it right here, right now with tin snips, and a vice. If a half-way decent metal worker is going to take a couple hours to do it, I'm assuming the bends and cuts have to be done right, or else the ammunition will get stuck. Secondly, even if "tin snips and a vice" is all the equipment you need to do it, how many people actually have those? So, as Yoda mentions, they would have to go out and buy that, and then develop the skills to complete a "couple hours" task.

After talking about that, I have one big question: What does anyone's knowledge and skill in bending metal have to do with whether they are a gun person? Are you saying that all people who fire guns automatically know how to bend metal to exact specifications? That seems like a pretty big leap of logic.

And given the ferocity with which you jumped all over that compromise, I have to ask: How exactly are you trying to bridge the gap between gun advocates and those who want tighter controls? Is there one suggestion you have seen from the other side that you would be willing to consider?

I believe I'm failing, but at least I'm trying to bridge some part of the divide between "them" and "us".

Well, there's something we agree on. But think about this: Before calling anyone who disagrees with you a hypocrite, how about considering why they disagree with you? Or possibly even consider the fact that they may have fully considered your argument, but still prefer their opinion? If you want people to respect, and fully consider your viewpoint, you have to respect, and fully consider theirs. This article did not do that. As LadyX mentions in her post, a lot of that has to do with tone. It was very condescending and derogatory to anyone who wants stricter gun laws.

Next time you want to educate someone on a viewpoint they don't agree with, try sticking more with facts, and ideally, use an article that acknowledges the validity of the other sides concerns. It will be far more likely to be accepted.

It's a lot easier to bridge the divide when you lay the stones, rather than throw them at the other side.

This is not a contest. It's an attempt to see if even one of you can actually try to see someone else's point of view. And so far, you're all failing. I'm very disappointed in you all.

Read LadyX's post. She did concede some of the points had merit. To me, that's clearly seeing someone else's viewpoint. On the other hand, if you seriously saw this essay as a balanced take on the situation, maybe you need to look in the mirror when claiming someone is not trying to see someone else's view.

How exactly did you expect an essay which continuously and repeatedly brands the opposing viewpoint as unworthy of trust, to aid in anyone being more likely to see the other side?

I'm having a hard time believing this isn't just another attempt by you to troll those who want stricter gun laws.

I think the employers of the illegal immigrants should have to pay for the medical expensess of these people. After all, if the employers made sure that the people they were hiring had the proper work permits this wouldn't happen.

The employers think they get a cheap ride by hiring undocumented workers so why shouldn't they foot the bill for these workers when the workers need medical care?

From what I understand in the original post, the employers were trying to pay. They paid for this employee to have a company health plan, but the hospital didn't believe the insurance company would ever actually pay out on that policy.

There definitely seems to be a lot of questionable activity going on. But for the recount practices, I don't know what is weird in your country. If the government/incumbent normally has the power to have a recount, then it is weird that they would waver on it. But, it would also make me wonder how the opposition would ever win if the incumbent had that much power over the vote process. In Canada, elections are run by Elections Canada, with specific rules laid out for when a recount happens, and its up to Elections Canada to enforce the rules. Any party can petition them to do a recount but the incumbent party, at least in theory, has no more power to demand a recount than the challengers do. It doesn't sound like the CNE has that sort of autonomy, but there seems to be a growing international awareness that might force them to do a full recount.

Hopefully this all gets sorted out soon enough. It seems like the longer the results are in question, the more greater the risk of violence, and that's not good for anyone.

From what I've read, there is already a policy in place for an automatic recount of 54% of the votes, which the electoral commission says it did. How would a recount of the remaining 46% catch enough to make a difference? Not trying to be critical, just trying to get an understanding of your election/recount rules and procedures.

compared to this:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/vabnZ9-ex7o

Can you really say one has more of a melody than the other? By your own definition, Nirvana and any three piece rock band wouldn't be music because they don't have the harmonies required. They can't, with only a single guitar, and a single voice.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/1TADyXC2K0g

This,

As a single male university student I spend roughly 17% of my budget on food if I eat at home every meal. If I go out at all, that number climbs, so I'm sure LadyX's 25% number isn't too far off for a woman with children.

In Ontario, we've seen the sales tax drop from 15 to 13% due to the federal government reducing its portion of that tax. This may seem extremely regressive to some of you, but I think our society has found a good way to balance that. There are no taxes on unprepared food items. Food from a restaurant is taxed, but food from a grocery store is not. This way struggling families aren't hit with added costs for items they need to survive.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/KK5YGWS5H84

Why is it that some people feel so STRONGLY about their religious views?

Why wouldn't they? It would seem kind of silly to live your life in a way you don't fully believe in, wouldn't it? If a Buddhist doesn't believe in the power of meditation, there is no point in him or her trying to achieve inner peace through it.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/9u0aDF2tsc4

The late Mitch Hedberg

http://www.youtube.com/embed/tXS5GBuk-GQ

Lewis Black!

We've been dating for 5 months, but only had sex for the last month, and she's a sex addict? How was she satisfying her addiction the first 4 months?

The virgin Mary. Just because I love the idea of using the "it's not mine, it's God's" line after. Though, if I have sex with her, then she's not really a virgin anymore, is she?

I hate to be the douche that debates this point. Gun vs knife- the gun will win 4 of 5 times. Guns make it easy for bad people to do bad things. Can a crazy do as much with a knife? Yeah he/she could, if that person was highly skilled and had a plan.

20% of the time, a knife beats a gun? What do you base this on? Sure, maybe Rambo can kill more people with a knife. But he's not real.

A knife is probably better for a stealth attack if you don't want to get caught. Less noise. But if we're talking multiple victims, I don't see how a knife is better. Especially if both the knife holder, and the gun holder are "highly skilled, and have a plan." It's just hard to take out multiple people from distance with a knife. Sure, you could throw it, but carrying around a bag of 50 knives is going to slow you down a helluva lot, making you far easier to avoid and/or stop.

Road trips
travel
bubble bath
Watch movies
Going out to dance
Going out to eat
Going to the beach


What? No hammock? I would have bet money on that being listed ;)

I wonder when we have armed enough people and stockpiled enough guns to make the right feel safe?

It will never happen. It's a self defeating notion. Because as long as you are allowed guns, you know everyone else has guns. So then you will always need one more gun, just to be safe, and make sure that you have more than everyone else.

These debates are always amusing to watch. In Canada, we get almost the identical tv shows and movies that you do in the US. The only difference is our news programming, and enough Canadian programming to satisfy Canadian content laws. Yet for some reason, the violent movies and tv shows don't drive us to the same level of violence. There are two main differences that I can see at the root of this: 1. We have gun control. 2. We have a strong safety net to help reduce the harshness of poverty, and to pay for any health care costs.

And somehow, those two differences allow Canadians to leave their doors unlocked when they are home during the day, while their American neighbours feel the need to barricade their doors, and stock up on rounds for their AK-47s.

Definitely man made, or at the very least, man increased. We would be foolish to believe that all the clear cutting, and polluting we have done would not have some sort of affect on the environment.

As for what I'm doing to try and ease the problem: I walk instead of drive, when I have the choice. I keep my apartment at a comfortable, but colder temperature in the winter and let it be a little warmer in the summer. I compensate by removing or adding layers of clothing as needed, and when possible, spend my time outside instead of inside. I also do my best to buy local foods, with as little styrofoam packaging as possible. And I recycle as much of my waste as I possibly can.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/wWe1XZ5zTR8

http://www.youtube.com/embed/y9k-k8609go