271–280 of 281 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vast majority of homes are not in any way smart.
The vast majority of people in the US have a smartphone in their pocket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Switzerland is almost unique in only adopting laws to reduce the number of bad actors (very strict immigration system) Strict? 25% of Switzerland’s population is foreign-born[1], and they are in the Schengen area, so no passport needed to cross the borders. I’ve cycled through at least three, none of which were even marked. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Switzerland#/...
"Strict" doesn't necessarily mean "don't let anyone in"; in this case it means "have a rigorous validation process to ensure you only let in very desirable migrants".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Beware, government is not those who command it. If there was some real democracy out there where citizens all should be actively implicated in the government (as opposed to supposedly delegate it), then what would it mean to have citizen wanting to increase control on citizen?
> what would it mean to have citizen wanting to increase control on citizen? The breakdown of the rule of law. It’s what happened in Athens and is why pure direct democracy doesn’t work: the tyranny of the majority [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
By the way, "what happened to Athens" doesn’t mean much: it’s still a living city, although the age of city-state has long gone.
So, as Churchill would quote it: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." see: https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because direct death at the accident is not what makes it big deal but the numbers are used to argue just that.
what is a big deal then? Unusable area? Mining coal or rare earth for solar panel already do that for you on a two order of magnitude difference at least (not counting detroyed montaintops and water pollution). Population displacement? Yeah, again an order of magnitude inferior to dammage caused by mining (this time counting water pollution). Not counting when hydro power fail: two order of magnitude differential jus…
You probably don't know that, but the radioactive cloud from chernobyl contaminated large areas of central europe.
To the point, that I still cannot pick and eat mushrooms out of the forest as much as I like and that every wild boar meat has to be checked for radioactivity and lots of it has to be thrown away. And that a generation had to avoid open playground for some time.
That is a huge impact from just one accident 34 years ago. Which happened far away from us. And also one of the reasons, why nuclear power is not liked very much in germany. Nobody wants a radioactive cloud on a bigger scale.
So I am not for turning all nuclear power plants off now, but as soon as they can be replaced by regenerative energy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I don't want to restrict ownership of howitzers. Though personally, I'd prefer an M61 vulcan. So no, I wouldn't say I'd restrict based on body count.
Just to be clear, you’d be fine with a personally owned nuke if it didn’t have fallout?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ahh, I love the McNuke argument. It's like "what about the roads" but for firearms policy. I've actually thought pretty hard about it, but no, I don't think so, and I believe my reason is consistent with the ideology I expressed above. The issue with nukes is that it's simply not possible to detonate one without causing collateral damage. Fallout, radiation poisoning, etc. So the government can in fact act to keep th…
Private ownership of nuclear weapons has a slightly different problem that isn't usually brought up in the "nuclear garden gnome" discussions: it has a capability to break the MAD doctrine. If your country allows anyone to own a warhead (and perhaps also a delivery system), then from the outside perspective, you're an unpredictable first strike threat. Which means suddenly the best option is to preemptively glass you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to be clear, you’d be fine with a personally owned nuke if it didn’t have fallout?
The issue is not the fallout but the fact that a nuclear weapon cannot be targeted - it by its very nature and design harms innocent civilians. Compare that to a fierarm, which can obviously be directed one way or the other. It's the same reason I wouldn't load my concealed carry handgun with FMJ rounds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok but how about if you combine all truck attacks vs all shootouts Not like Americans can do anything with the guns. You gonna stop what's happening right now with your pistol? Go on then. Literally the time to shine that liberty. You've got a guy threatening to be Hitler 2.0 (hi Godwin!) and making moves towards that.. nothing Oh they'd just make it worse? Maybe you shouldn't have them so easily accessible then http…
I'd argue a fairer metric would probably be to compare gun deaths to car deaths; nearly twice as many people died to cars in 2019 [0] [1]. I definitely don't think Trump will be "Hitler 2.0". He probably won't even be in office after this election. Again, however, my primary argument is normative and values-based. I'm not arguing that we only have gun rights because they don't kill x number of people. Even if a hundr…
I'd rather aim towards zero deaths in both columns rather than decide which is the better cause of death. You do you America
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue a fairer metric would probably be to compare gun deaths to car deaths; nearly twice as many people died to cars in 2019 [0] [1]. I definitely don't think Trump will be "Hitler 2.0". He probably won't even be in office after this election. Again, however, my primary argument is normative and values-based. I'm not arguing that we only have gun rights because they don't kill x number of people. Even if a hundr…
It must be a cultural difference. For context I'm in the U.K. where a gun being fired would hit local news, a gun-related death would probably make the papers I'd rather aim towards zero deaths in both columns rather than decide which is the better cause of death. You do you America