Quote by eroticwriter26
Holy crap... That's cool, I wonder what's down there? lol
A poorly built storm drain. That's what causes most sink holes like this.
Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
Playmale
Over 90 days ago
Bisexual Male, 59
0 miles · San Antonio
Forum
Smiley Guru
Quote by bikebum1975Quote by chefkathleen
I still laugh about the McDonalds v. dumbwoman case. The coffee burnt her? Really? It was hot? Wow!
OR the man that sued Wendy's? for his wife getting burnt lips from hot pickles on her burger and therefore he couldn't kiss her. Or whatever the hell it was.
Yeah always loved that one bout the old lady burning herself with coffee HELL IT"S CALLED HOT COFFEE FOR A REASON YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!!!! LMAO
Some people are just to freakin stupid.
I read recently that in the Mc Donalds Hot Coffee case the woman was actually badly burned and was suing for her medical bills (including skin grafts). The JURY decided that since it was shown that McD's had been cited by health inspectors repeatedly for the temperature of their coffee (180 degrees F) and had ignored these they would send a message with a punitative damages. McD's kept the coffee so extremely hot because they continue to sell it long after it should have been thrown out.
Do you all remember how McD's coffee used to be? You would fry your mouth on the first sip so you couldn't even taste how shitty the coffee really was.
I kind of like the irony of McDonalds trying to paint themselves as a seller of gourmet coffee. To me those ads are an instant "fail" with a supersize of "facepalm" everytime I see one.
Smiley Guru
Quote by Jebru
OK. I clicked the link, and read the entire writeup, but still do not see the tables they refer to with the full statistics. I only see the ones they highlight in their writeup. A few flaws with their information jump out at me. 1. They admit that 25% of the people who claimed to have used a gun for defensive purposes, also said in the same survey that they did not actually own a gun. 2. The statistics are compiled through surveys. You have to be alive to answer the questions, which means that the information automatically excludes those who were murdered while trying to use a gun to protect themselves. This exclusion creates a more positive result to the study than what reality actually is. 3. There is no way to determine how many of the people who thought they would have been killed, actually would have been. It's all left up to untrained civilians to determine whether they actually did avert a deadly situation.
The statistics are for successful gun defenses (2.5 million in this survey), the non successful gun defenses are the murders and gun crime statistics most rely on (about 60,000 per year). They discuss the fallacy of reasoning in assuming the victims passive role as a willing target. The link at the bottom of the report goes to the full report, they summarize the survey method, and give the statistics in the narrative. They further go on to have a peer review by an expert with the contrairian viewpoint, who conceeds that the article is accurate. Then the government tried to duplicate and disprove the study, yet only confirmed it stating that they most likely underestimated because of exclusions.
Quote by Jebru
Now, to my points I raised before. I'm not saying that guns are primarily used against loved ones. You seem to be dismissing this because the majority of uses are not at family members, while I still feel it is a significant minority. If you say they are defences, not accidents, then where do the accidents get accounted for? Or is that another factor the study fails to account for. A comprehensive study should also include how many times a gun was used in defense of a percieved threat, that turned out to not be one.
Those are accounted for in the gunshot wound and fatalities statistics, which are the statistics most used to support gun control.
Quote by Jebru
And how does my assumption make no sense? Your stats state that in 83.5% of successful defences, the attacker either threatened or used force first. I'm asking what caused the defender to draw their gun in the other 16.5% of the cases, since they were neither threatened, nor had force used on them, as that was covered in the category represented by 83.5% of the defenders.
You're making assumptions about what the conditions were in those cases, and that is not a valid argument.
Smiley Guru
Quote by Jebru
It would be good to see the full study and all the responses.
Click the link.
Quote by Jebru
For one, how well below 10% is the use of guns against family members? Because I would still consider 5% to be very high. That would mean that 1 in 20 times a gun was used, it was used by mistake.
Domestic violence. These were defenses not accidents. There is a prevailing myth that guns are used primarily against loved ones, this disproves it.
Quote by Jebru
And it could be more, because there is a dataset unaccounted for. If in 73.4% of incidents the attacker was a stranger, and "well under 10%" were against family members, what happened in the other 16.4 to 26.4% of incidents?
Aquaintances.
Quote by Jebru
I'm also curious about the 16.5% of the time when the defender drew their weapon without being threatened or attacked first. If threats or force were not used, why did they draw their gun? That's 1 in every 6.25 times a gun was drawn it was done with no provocation.
You've implied an assumption here that makes no sense, there was obviously a provocation or there would be no defense. These are gun defense statistics. This particular statement disproves the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference, 83.5% of the time.
Smiley Guru
Quote by Jebru
And you can compare your gun to to a fire extinguisher, or smoke detector, but neither of those devices also have the potential to set your house on fire.
Actually a hard wired smoke detector could easily short circuit and start a fire.
Also fire extinguishers are commonly found in kitchens and garages and most house fires start in kitchens and garages, so it could be reasoned that since there is a greater probability of a fire where they are found they are in fact responsible for those fires by their presence increasing the likeyhood of the fire.
Sounds kooky but it's the same logic that we use to "prove" that something causes cancer.
How about instead we look a few facts that come from a study which claims to be unbiased from this source. (there is a lot more there I'd reccomend it.)
Gun Defense Use Statistics
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.
Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995
I found this because I was looking for the number of gun crimes committed with "legal" vs "illegal" guns. I didn't find that but what I did see was that the majority of gun crimes were committed by people with criminal records against people with criminal records, and that the guns the used were illegal.
So if you take away the law abiding citizens guns, who will be left with them?
Thugs and the state.
ChefK - Powerful story. Sounds about like the worrst case scenario everyone is bringin up in this discussion about full body scans. I hope the good guys all came out alright.
Smiley Guru
Quote by DamonX
Gee, how did I manage to piss off both the right and left wing?
Easy, you insulted and dismissed the document that defines our Republic.
Quote by DamonX
...tomorrow we'll all be living in some Orwellian dystopia, blah blah, blah.
Funny you should mention Orwell, many of the things described in "1984" already exist in some fasion.
Here are some comparisons to 1984 and "now" (I'm not sure when "now" was)
Here is a page of predictions and where we were at in 1981.
Remember....
Smiley Guru
Quote by DamonX
And please, please, please, can we not quote the constitution like it was handed down by the gods. The second amendment refers to the forming of militias in a time when communities in the newly formed nation were still believed to be under threat of attack. This was 1791 people. It doesn't mean that "Billy Bob" gets to have a semi-automatic with amour piercing bullets.
...
Now I don't mean to trash the USA. (Trust me, I've defended the US more times than I can remember). But this reflex reference to the constitution as the be-all and end-all gets a little tiresome. It's almost a get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to intelligent discussion. Its almost as irritating as when people quote the bible to justify their beliefs or actions.
...
what apsects are still relevant. Freedom of speech? relevant. Freedom of press? relevant. Freedom to form militias? not so much. You have the 2nd largest army in the world. Pretty sure you're ok when it comes to defense.
The Constitution is the highest law in the land, and is the insurance against tyranny. The second amendment was not intended merely as a means to establish an army (Militia) it was so that the people would be protected from the government, because the founding fathers knew that unless the government is enslaved it will enslave the people.
I suggest you reread even the very short section of the bill of rights that I posted. These are not freedoms the people are allowed. These are restrictions placed on the government.
Remember from the President all the way down make an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Now when you want to talk about freedoms being releveant, how about we look at not infringed?
Speech: How about a "free speech zone" where you get to protest in a fenced off area with storm troopers surrounding you and corralling you and arresting you...
Like at the DNC and RNC 2008
Free speech it's for the old too!
Freedom of the Press, how about something relevant like reporting on the oil spill in the gulf and taking photos?
Fourth Amendment: The right of the peolpe to be secure in their persons, houses , papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supoported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, abd the person or things to be seized.
We started here with full body scans, but how about we consider illegal wiretapping, recording e-mails and phone conversations as a mater of course, have you heard of "sneak and peak?" That is where a government agency hacks into your computer, without a warrant, and searchs your hard drive. The unpleasantness at the airport is only the tip of the iceberg on this one.
We do live in a modern age and air travel is how we cross great distances quickly. It is not magic. There is no reason that we should be subject to an illegal search before we board a plane. The best security people will tell you that the screening is a show. they are reinforcing to public that they should feel safe when disarmed. Is that reality? "Don't worry the man with the gun over there, on our payroll, is looking out for you."
We live in a day when a 4000 page document (the Patriot Act) was railroaded through congress after what is at best described as a questionable event. That document seeks to gut the protections spelled out in the Bill of Rights.
So yes, I'd say all these Amendments are relevant.
The freedom that makes the Unitesd States great is not the freedom to choose your own brand of beer or bitch about what's on TV. The freedom that makes The United States great is that you and I have protecion from and a say in the government, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
It's not our given right to enjoy those freedoms, it's our duty to protect them.
Smiley Guru
Here's an article with a satellite image from April 25,
and here's one from May 18.
WARNING: The images refernced above may be considered disturbing by decent humans of near average or greater intelligence.
and here's one from May 18.
WARNING: The images refernced above may be considered disturbing by decent humans of near average or greater intelligence.
Smiley Guru
Ya know...
I'm no genius, but isn't an oil well, well...a well? As I recall half the trouble with wells is keeping them open, just like a tunnel or a mine shaft. Wouldn't it be completely feasible to detonate charges around the well to collapse the shaft and seal or at least slow the leak?
Maybe that would just make maters worse by creating fissures and distributing the area over which oil seeps out, but if it slows the rate from flowing to seeping that is a step in the right direction isn't it?
The difficulty they have now is to get material down to plug the leak, why not use what is there?
Of course this would be a quick solution and BP wouldn't be allowed to DRILL TWO ADDITIONAL WELLS (RELIEF WELLS) where they weren't able to get permits for new drilling.
$.02
I'm no genius, but isn't an oil well, well...a well? As I recall half the trouble with wells is keeping them open, just like a tunnel or a mine shaft. Wouldn't it be completely feasible to detonate charges around the well to collapse the shaft and seal or at least slow the leak?
Maybe that would just make maters worse by creating fissures and distributing the area over which oil seeps out, but if it slows the rate from flowing to seeping that is a step in the right direction isn't it?
The difficulty they have now is to get material down to plug the leak, why not use what is there?
Of course this would be a quick solution and BP wouldn't be allowed to DRILL TWO ADDITIONAL WELLS (RELIEF WELLS) where they weren't able to get permits for new drilling.
$.02
Smiley Guru
"The very worst poetry in the universe died along with its creator, Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings of Sussex... in the destruction of the planet Earth."
--HHGTTG, Douglas Adams
This led someplace mildly interesting...
Paul Neil Milne Johnstone (aka Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings) (Douglas Adams)
Paul is a real person, who wrote some appalling poetry. DNA used his
name, but was forced to retract it for the books and later recordings
of the radio series. Hence the original programmes have Paul Neil ...
whereas the later works have Paula Nancy ....
Either way the poetry still sucks.
Smiley Guru
A couple of the rights mentioned in the US Bill of Rights have been mentioned here.
Well here are three of them spelled out:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
These were ennumerated and enacted to impose limits on the government, because the founding fathers knew that governments (power) will intrude on the individual unless restrained.
Now read the language.
Congress shall MAKE NO LAW...
...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED...
That is black and white language. It dosn't say, except for air travel, it doesn't say when it's convienient.
These intrusive searches are a process to indoctrinate us to feel we must give up the liberties guarnateed by the constitution in order to "feel" safe. Are you safer when you have been publicly searched, ordered to remove articles of clothing, and had any vestige of dignity removed? Or are you simply being conditioned to not respond to unreasonable overuse of authority in the name of security?
My response is not just no, but hell no!
Here are some more body scans, and we all have to understand that since there are a total of about 5 released scans on the web, compared to the thousands or more already made we know that these are not the most revealing, these are the ones released because we would tolerate them.
Now I'm not saying that being seen naked is bad, nor that associating nudity with flying is a bad idea, it just needs to be fun!
Well here are three of them spelled out:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
These were ennumerated and enacted to impose limits on the government, because the founding fathers knew that governments (power) will intrude on the individual unless restrained.
Now read the language.
Congress shall MAKE NO LAW...
...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED...
That is black and white language. It dosn't say, except for air travel, it doesn't say when it's convienient.
These intrusive searches are a process to indoctrinate us to feel we must give up the liberties guarnateed by the constitution in order to "feel" safe. Are you safer when you have been publicly searched, ordered to remove articles of clothing, and had any vestige of dignity removed? Or are you simply being conditioned to not respond to unreasonable overuse of authority in the name of security?
My response is not just no, but hell no!
Here are some more body scans, and we all have to understand that since there are a total of about 5 released scans on the web, compared to the thousands or more already made we know that these are not the most revealing, these are the ones released because we would tolerate them.
Now I'm not saying that being seen naked is bad, nor that associating nudity with flying is a bad idea, it just needs to be fun!
