JCauto

On 7/19/2022 at 3:07 AM, smedly said:

engineer of what exactly ?

 

how about sharing your opinion on the the topic instead of the "I'm an engineer and you are all talking ##" stupid nonsense and quite frankly for a self claimed expert on everything - well you have to be since according to you we are all talking z3#................the engineer of ? ##, I will guess you from the USA who have to odd ## that thinks they know everything..........you don't

 

oh and I have 3rd level education but I don't need to brag about it, common sense overrides stupidity no matter how smart you think you are, right now pretty much everyone has an opinion about you, try joining and contributing to the conversation instead of telling everyone they are stupid because you are "an engineer" lol

Civil engineering, seeing as you're so interested.

Despite your 3rd level education, you were unable to discern my point, that being the almost complete lack of technical expertise or experience amongst the vaccine and mask skeptics. That you are so interested in the minutiae of my degree yet unable to describe any technical aspects of your own (other than "3rd level") tells me I was correct.

Yes, they're so much more influenced by pornography in movies than by, oh, the dozen or so places selling sex openly that they walk or drive past every day on their way to school. I'm sure the dreaded porn affects them much more than their father having a mia noi who is only a few years older than they are. 

2 hours ago, smedly said:

and you of course are a genius at everything

No, not at all, although I may be better at maths and science than you since I'm an engineer. Or perhaps you're one too?

Doubt it, since you're rabbitting on about pandemic response without acknowledging the millions of people who were saved by it. In my experience, practically none of the Google PhDs in Epidemiology that suddenly appeared have much if any of a technical background. But boy, they sure do learn quick! Seems I made a big mistake by studying and working in technical fields for years when all I needed was a few Youtube videos and Bob's Your Uncle! 

Wow, all the amateur epidemiologists are back! Were you finally going back to uni to catch up on those noisome statistics courses you missed out on the first time? Excellent that y'all realized you were talking about things you hadn't a clue about so decided to swot up! Just wondering though how you managed to acquire decades of experience as well in that short time since you were last pontificating...

9 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The answer is obvious , everyone would choose the baby .

But if I were to reply with "The baby" , he would try to use that to make me wrong about something, or that I'm a hypocrite or something or prove some other point .

   He seemed to be making the point that babys have more value than unborn babies .

  Everybody would choose to rescue the baby

Exactly. Thank you for being honest. Now use the same calculus to assess the value of the unborn in comparison to that of the mother. The unborn do not in any case have any precedence over the living. 

16 hours ago, JCauto said:

There was a great analogy I read the other day that clarifies things in this endless and fruitless debate. It's a variation on the "Trolley Problem".

 

You're in a house that has caught on fire. The house is a Center for Reproductive Health. You wake up in a panic and rush to get out. On your way out, you quickly open a door because you hear someone screaming in terror and inside there are two chairs. One has a child of 1 year old on it. The other has a big container with 1,000 in-vitro fertilization eggs that have already been impregnated with sperm and the cooling systems to maintain them. You can only carry one and what is left will burn. What do you do?

Yo! Mac! Mac Mickmanus! Did you see this post? Why haven't you responded? What would you do? You've responded to other posts since I sent this and you responded to my other posts about this topic. Simple question. What do you do? HELLO!!!!!

2 hours ago, JCauto said:

There was a great analogy I read the other day that clarifies things in this endless and fruitless debate. It's a variation on the "Trolley Problem".

 

You're in a house that has caught on fire. The house is a Center for Reproductive Health. You wake up in a panic and rush to get out. On your way out, you quickly open a door because you hear someone screaming in terror and inside there are two chairs. One has a child of 1 year old on it. The other has a big container with 1,000 in-vitro fertilization eggs that have already been impregnated with sperm and the cooling systems to maintain them. You can only carry one and what is left will burn. What do you do?

By the way, the person who wrote the original analogy observed that when he would post this on fora, he practically NEVER gets a response because everyone knows what the answer is including the so-called "right-to-lifers", hence they simply won't answer. Prove us wrong Mac!

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Though Thaksin was beloved by millions, and did a far better job than Prayuth could ever dream of doing, it seems that the family is fairly toxic at this point. Time for some new blood. Some smart, creative, youthful leadership. 

Oh, you mean the Future Forward Party? Gee, what happened with those guys?

1 hour ago, Misterwhisper said:

This is like freakin' deja-vu.

 

In my opinion, it's rather clear why PTP fields an unexperienced "girly" like Paetongtarn. who at 35 years old cannot possibly have attained the political acumen to head a government and whose knowledge of economics is limited to spending her family's wealth....

 

Then again, Thai politics has NEVER been about political competence and fielding the right people. Instead it's ALWAYS been who is going to get their turn at the feeding trough next.

Okay...so first of all, PTP hasn't fielded this woman as their leader, this is the response of people to a NIDA Poll. You know, as in "I, Prayuth, NEED A Poll that shows I am a popular Prime Minister..." That he finished 3rd in a NEED A Poll is about as big a condemnation as you're likely to observe in this land when it comes to powerful people who gained it via having guns.

Second of all, while your last sentence is true, why should it be accepted as being so? When it appears that there may actually be an independent candidate or party, he's sure to be quickly moved to the side (do you recall Thanathorn?). And don't think this is just the Military who were on board with that; the Democrats and Peua Thai would similarly be pleased to see him shuffled off to the sidelines. That's what they REALLY don't want! But second-worst is Thaksin, who for all of his bluster, lack of respect for institutions and corruption did something nobody else had previously done - pointed the government firehose of funds towards the North and Northeast and decentralized power to them. That's something they'll never forgive, and why he's still Public Enemy Number One. Once the people realized that this was possible, the genie was out of the bottle. Now they'll put him or his relatives or sock puppets back whenever they're allowed to do so. 

The biggest disappointment for me remains the pathetic attitudes of the Bangkokians and other Thai who know better but won't vote against their own interests because they're essentially beneficiaries of the corruption and, at the end of the day, aren't willing to suffer even minor inconvenience to get real change. Oh, and the even-more-pathetic foreign cheerleaders (Steven100, care to offer another full-throated defense of the powers-that-be?).

18 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It doesnt really make much difference , you are still depriving a living being of a life , whether you do that after 9 weeks , 20 weeks or 30 weeks, doesn't really make much difference . To are just ending that life a few weeks earlier

There was a great analogy I read the other day that clarifies things in this endless and fruitless debate. It's a variation on the "Trolley Problem".

You're in a house that has caught on fire. The house is a Center for Reproductive Health. You wake up in a panic and rush to get out. On your way out, you quickly open a door because you hear someone screaming in terror and inside there are two chairs. One has a child of 1 year old on it. The other has a big container with 1,000 in-vitro fertilization eggs that have already been impregnated with sperm and the cooling systems to maintain them. You can only carry one and what is left will burn. What do you do?

22 hours ago, happy me said:

Well this really is a load of <deleted>! Extremely poor judgement!

Sorry Khunying? You may have to dip into the petty cash to pay off this minor inconvenience. How much was scammed, just give us the number of zeros, no need for too much detail.

2 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Hmmm, you want to make a point by comparing guns to alcohol? 

 

(Now I assume that since I once again directly  addressed one of your points of logic.......... just like I did before......... you'll accused me once again of "deflecting." ???????????? Come on, now......... go for it! )

 

 

Once again, on schedule and off point. You're a boring troll.

"My point, which you I'm sure fully understood, was that if the shooter in this specific case had to go through the 17 steps of the driver's license process, with multiple people who were trained in "red flag" signs such as the shooting instructor, they would have likely been identified as a risk and then they would not have gotten a gun."

Now, you'll no doubt go off an another dull attempt at trolling by saying "hmmm, you want to make a point by comparing guns to driving." Go on, you can't resist, and you have a pathological need to get the last word in. Tell you what, if you actually post something germane and sensible I'll let you have it and you can triumphantly raise your beer among your miserable mates and receive the plaudits. Because no doubt you're about 4 beers in at this point of the day.

15 hours ago, habanero said:

As a Texas resident myself, your comparison is mute. Do you not know the difference between a class C license and a class A or B?

Oh, are you making a point of some sort? Because if you are, perhaps you might explain it so that we can understand. Is there a way in Texas to get a driver's license without testing or identification or something? 

Or are you just trying to get in the "last word" so you can declare victory with your drinking mates and can regale them about how you "owned the libs" again on gun control?

15 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Are you familiar with the phrase "Locks are for honest people?" 

 

If someone has decided that what they really want to do is shoot up an elementary school........ he'll want to do that before he buys the guns.............. and he'll still want to do that after getting his license and going through the training. 

 

Because all the training is going to focus on is how to not shoot someone accidentally.......... yourself included.

 

As far as I can see, training won't stop anyone who is determined to be a shooter. It'll just make them better at it! 

 

Is there a logic to having people whose intention is to be safe anyway.......... get licenses and training that helps them be safe anyway? Sure, I guess so. 

 

But that doesn't even remotely address the problem we're talking about........... does it? 

Oh wow! More deflection! I'm shocked!

My point, which you I'm sure fully understood, was that if the shooter in this specific case had to go through the 17 steps of the driver's license process, with multiple people who were trained in "red flag" signs such as the shooting instructor, they would have likely been identified as a risk and then they would not have gotten a gun. If the age for being able to purchase a gun was raised to 21 (you know, like the drinking age because apparently 18yo are too immature to drink, but they ARE mature enough to handle a war weapon), then they would not have been able to get one without breaking the law and being at further risk of being identified and arrested prior to the opportunity to shoot up a school. If they had to wait 3 years to enact their nefarious plan, odds are they'd have an incident with the law that would put at risk their ability to purchase a firearm legally. 

So yes, that DOES start to address the problem.

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Arizona......... as long as you meet the prerequisite. 

 

In Arizona, because I had a valid New Jersey driver's license, I did not have to take any tests---written or driving---to get my Arizona license. I just filled out the forms and paid the fees. 

 

Had to do a driving test in Washington, California and New Jersey, though. And I seem to recall a driving test being required over a certain age in Arizona, even if you have an existing license. I may be wrong about this, though. 

 

Cheers! 

 

 

In other words, YES, you have to do a driving test, and having done three in the past, that was accepted as valid. While I'd enjoy a trip to Arizona (with my golf clubs), it's not going to work because of this.

I would be interested though in your actual response to the question I posed. Why wouldn't you have a similar licensing process for guns as you do for driving? As a trained driver, and trained gun user, why would you want people wandering around without any gun training or licensing?

18 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Don't you realize that the training done in the military primarily exists for two reasons............

 

1) To improve a person's ability to kill; and

 

2) To limit the chances they will kill the wrong people, accidentally.

 

See, that military training you seem to believe is important enough to mention........... exists almost exclusively for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of armed personnel. It exists to teach them how to kill efficiently and properly. 

 

---------------

 

If an 18-year old wants to buy guns with the aim of shooting up an elementary school............... what sort of mandatory training  do you think is going to talk him out of that? 

 

Certainly not military training. Military training would just teach him how to be better at it! 

 

????????????

 

Cheers! 

In order to join the military, you have to not be disqualified. In order to not be disqualified, you have to be tested, interviewed and have your record examined, and if any of these things is the case, you will be disqualified:

Bad credit or a lot of debt;

Citizenship or Legal Permanent Residence status;

High School graduate or equivalent;

Dependency/History of drug or alcohol dependency;

Criminal history including ANY domestic violence misdemeanor, felony conviction as an adult, felony conviction involving violence as a juvenile, sex crimes or sale of illegal drugs;

Specific medical condition (including mental health issues).

So, what I want is for anyone buying a gun to have similar sort of scrutiny first, then be properly trained where someone with a lot of experience can both teach them how to properly operate and maintain the weapon but also interact up close and personal with the trainee to provide another level of assurance that there wasn't something missed in the original vetting process. Obviously it's not foolproof, but it's a way you can at least cut out a lot of the obvious red flag cases. Would this kid have been able to get through a session with an experienced instructor without him detecting red flags (especially if they are trained to do so)? I am guessing not, but of course it's possible he could have. You can't have a 100% success rate, but even a 25% success rate would mean reducing the killing by a significant amount.

Now why is it that the military insists on this as policy? Why would you want there to be zero scrutiny before someone buys a weapon capable of similar efficiency in killing people and no oversight or training or other requirements of said person? 

On 6/6/2022 at 8:05 PM, habanero said:

All I stated is that a purchased a new rifle. Look at what you have thus interpreted. You must be a fan of the "View".  I mentioned nothing about an 18 yo. purchasing a gun. Also, mentioned nothing about high capacity magazines. Thou, I must admit. I don't believe in licensing. Would you be in favor of licensing so that you can exercise your 1st amendment rights? Or would the 4th amendment not apply to you because you failed to purchase a 4th amendment license? For your information, I have never purchased a firearm and I have purchased many. Without having to go through a background check. That even includes buying just a lower receiver for an M4 carbine.  Again, I think you listen to the ladies of the View too much.

Typical deflection and misdirection - disingenuousness is your calling card. This entire discussion is about allowing civilians to purchase these weapons without restriction and the context is the 18yo who went out on his birthday, bought one and shot up an Elementary School. Remember? Oh yeah!

And even still your response is "I don't believe in licensing", and then go off on a nonsensical argument about different constitutional amendments. Do you think it is the same thing to license people to use a weapon that can kill dozens in a few minutes versus having a license to speak? Of course you don't, you're just throwing stuff at the wall in the hope you don't have to make a logical argument, something you are basically incapable of. I will be charitable and assume there was a typo in your sentence "FYI, I have never purchased a firearm and I have purchased many" which makes no sense. I have never watched an episode of "the View" - I don't watch television at all.

So now that we've wasted time on your nonsensical non-sequitur, let's get back to the question I asked you. You state that you served time in a combat zone, meaning you were a highly trained soldier who had to regularly undertake refresher training in the use of guns and requalify, store the weapons in authorized and secure locations, learn about proper use, fire discipline, etc. With this knowledge, how do you justify providing similar weapons to kids with no training and no requirement to safely store the weapons? Do you think it was a waste of time to train you, and all that was needed was to slap on some camo gear and send you into war? Why do you need training when this kid does not?

18 hours ago, habanero said:

I have served more than enough time in a combat zone. I have nothing to prove.

 

And you have learned nothing from the experience then. If you served, you've seen the horrible damage these weapons can inflict on those shot, you've understood that you only could even serve with those weapons if you were passed initial, regular and update training every single year you served. If you demonstrated poor fire discipline, equipment maintenance or insubordination, you were punished for it. You were continually monitored by your superior officers. You could not take the weapons off base or off duty.

Yet you're totally cool with giving 18yo a right to go buy a semi-auto with similar killing power along with a high capacity magazine without any background check, any training, any obligation to ensure that they're a safe gun user, any licensing, any wait period, any oversight, any storage. No restrictions, let's just give them to everyone who wants one and wonder why all the carnage takes place? How do you justify that position from a logical point of view?