Comments On: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others by Goldy http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/16/one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others Comments On: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others by Goldy en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Fri, 24 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Fri, 24 May 2013 13:00:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]>
It's a pretty good plan. Too bad we have a massive standing army, no militia, and people who think they have that they have a right to carry a concealed weapon everywhere.
Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:58:42 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]> Posted by venomlash]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 05:11:37 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]>
This is one of the dumbest things Ive yet read here. Alcohol = natural product with many properties. Yes, it is a cellular toxin at high does and ethanol can be used to sterilize things (Matt, youre right about most of what you wrote, but it can be used to sterilize). It also depolarizes cell membranes, leading to a nice buzzy effect. However, we did NOT design alcohol. It comes from nature, and we have found ways to exploit its properties (much like many other natural products - morphine, taxol, vinca alkaloids, cannabis etc etc). How THE FUCK is this like a gun - a product which has no other stated purpose other than to kill things. Both you and K.M. are a couple of bloody crazy loonies. Oh and fuck you both. Cunts. Love, Me.
Posted by Nodz]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:41:21 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]> "As I just told @ 79, I made my case."

Yes, you are Jesus and therefore whatever you say is Holy Writ.
Guess I'm just a heathen.

"One is intending to use his car for its purpose - to get from one place to another. The other has his AR-15 and is intending to use it for its intended purpose. What do you think are your chances with surviving your encounters with each individual?"

Pretty good.
In fact, almost 100%.
Based off of prior experience.

"THAT is why you're wrong."

You might want to check with God on that, Jesus.
Because I'm still alive.
Anecdotally, I've had more people hit me with their cars than with guns or bullets.
Jesus, why have you forsaken the facts?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:51:27 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]> Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:36:03 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]>
@ 80, bold assertions don't make one wrong. As I just told @ 79, I made my case. You ignored it, ironically not explaining why I'm wrong as @ 79 accuses me.

But I'll ask you to think about this. Imagine coming across two different people as you go about your day. One is intending to use his car for its purpose - to get from one place to another. The other has his AR-15 and is intending to use it for its intended purpose. What do you think are your chances with surviving your encounters with each individual?

If that's not enough, try to find some per capita data relating how many fatal accidents there are per 1,000,000 car trips taken in the USA, and compare that to the per capita data of how many fatalities there are when someone decides to go shooting an AR-15 at people.

THAT is why you're wrong.

@ 81, there is more than one kind of alcohol. The kind that's used to sterilize (isopropyl alcohol, aka rubbing alcohol) is not safe to consume in any amount. The kind found in solvents (methanol) isn't, either. They're all different compounds. You probably know all that, but ethanol (the kind we drink) has no sterilization properties, which you seem to have asserted. If I misunderstood, never mind all this.

I will say this - I don't understand what you mean by "twisting alcohol's purpose." Maybe using the word "proper" is confusing. How about "responsibly"?

Now, one may rejoin with the fact that guns aren't being used responsibly when used to murder in cold blood. But it does beg the question as to why would someone would need to own one, if killing isn't what they want it for. I'm sure it destroys stuff pretty well - one of my wife's cousins, an Iraq vet, reported told my brother in law that unloading a clip at a person with an M-16 left nothing but a big bloodsmear, so if true, I'm sure there's shit you can destroy with its civilian cousin real good. Maybe that's "responsible," but I have a hard time seeing that.
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:11:55 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]>
You can keep asserting that light drinking is as bad as heavy
That's not what I'm arguing (and I don't recall ever making that assertion). I don't think there's anything wrong with light drinking - I drink all the time - but that's not the same thing as saying it's proper to do so.

You said the purpose of guns are to kill. I said the purpose of alcohol is also to kill. We make a version of alcohol that doesn't kill us as long as we go easy on it, but it's a twisting of alcohol's purpose. There are also versions of guns that don't kill, but it's also a twisting of a gun's purpose.
Posted by Urgutha Forka]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:08:36 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]> "yes, intent matters."

No. Because the intent does not change whether a person is dead or not.

"If all the people who died in car crashes were killed because of someone's intent, then you would see calls for banning cars."

Yeah, can we stick to what can be demonstrated?

"There's no point in elaborating. I'm right and you're wrong, and it's just that simple."

Whoops. Sorry, Jesus. I didn't know it was you behind that name.
Maybe you might want to scale back the omniscience?
You've just stepped really far in the "wrong" territory with that.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:50:57 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]> Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:46:44 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]>
There's no point in elaborating. I'm right and you're wrong, and it's just that simple.
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:37:53 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]>
Regarding your comments on alcohol, that's a shift from calling it poison, I'd say. And although no doctor would prescribe it to treat heart disease, no doctor will tell you that total abstinence is better than 1-2 drinks a day, either. (No doctor that's up on the studies, at any rate.) And I didn't allege that it was something that could take the place of cardio or diet. But the study I mentioned presumably included those who practiced good cardio and diet with light alcohol and those who did none at all. "All causes of death" seems to cover all the bases, anyway.

To say that abstinence is the "only" proper use flies in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. One CAN safely drink, and it will not result in your death, my death, or anyone's death. Which is precisely what you asserted back @ 56. EVERY time that happens, it's because someone drank too much, which is to say that they used it improperly. Whether it was to the point of poor judgment ("I can drive home, I done it lots of times before") or to acute alcohol poisoning (like drinking a liter of vodka in an hour or two), or to liver failure (after decades of abuse, AKA habitual overdrinking), those are all the wrong way to consume alcohol.

You can keep asserting that light drinking is as bad as heavy, but unless you can really point to something supporting that, I think the case is closed.

@ 75, there are already all kinds of restrictions on alcohol that DO have a positive effect on public health. I do believe DUI related fatalities are down over the past 25 years, when MADD got the drinking age raised nationally and got the states to enact serious penalties for DUI's.
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:35:56 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]> "yes, the intent and use matter."

No they do not.
They only matter in court for charging the person who killed someone.
Dead people are dead people.
If they were killed by accident that does not make them less dead.

"Why is that a problem here and not Switzerland?"

Because guns do not equate to gun violence.
Switzerland is the example of that.
As are the millions of guns here that are owned by responsible people that are not used in any crimes.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:16:45 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]> Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:38:52 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]> I DO support restrictions for gun sales. Always have.

From the end of the second paragraph in the wikipedia article you linked to:
Alcohol should be regarded as a recreational drug with potentially serious adverse effects on health and it is not recommended for cardio-protection in the place of safer and proven traditional methods such as exercise and proper nutrition.[6][7]
There's no "proper" use of alcohol, other than by medical workers to sterilize things. There's no "proper" amount to drink. Not drinking it at all is the "proper" amount. It may not be dangerous, and it may even have some benefits, but no doctor is going to write you a legal prescription to drink alcohol. They'll tell you to exercise and eat healthy foods instead.
Posted by Urgutha Forka]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:36:48 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]>
For your notion to be valid, you'll have to cite medical evidence, specifically, what damage happens over the long term to moderate drinkers? The answer is "nothing." Lifelong light drinkers have a 15-18% decrease in all-cause mortality rates compared to both abstainers and heavier drinkers. That, again, is the opposite of poison - when used properly (lightly).

Alcohol is comparable to medicine. A little bit is fine; a lot is not. There may be the danger of poisoning if too much is taken too fast, but that would be an example of IMproper use. I was speaking of proper use, as you know.

Anyway, alcohol is very restricted, and with good reason. If you really and truly believe that alcohol is a fair comparison to guns, then you'd support similar restrictions for gun sales.

(Also, botox isn't taken orally, and is administered by medical professionals. We'll see in a few decades if it isn't poisoning people anyway, but that's different from the hundreds of thousands of years alcohol has been consumed by humans.)
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:26:34 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]> Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:16:53 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]> Yeah, I think we did discuss this before. I don't recall conceding your point though. Alcohol IS a poison. Just because it has the side effect of thinning your blood to protect against heart attacks doesn't change that fact.

Botulism toxin is also a poison that people use for cosmetic reasons. Botox... botulism toxin. Gets rid of wrinkles... still a poison.
Posted by Urgutha Forka]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:56:26 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]> Don't you think that words inspire people to do violence though?

If a maniac reads a blog and is inpired to murder because of it, would you be so quick to suggest we put some restrictions on the First Amendment?

Indeed, what if the real problem is freedom of speech, not guns? I'm serious.

Don't be so eager to toss out the parts of the Bill of Rights that you feel lukewarm on, while conveniently defending the one that happens to protect your livelihood.

I don't live in some sick paranoid fantasy where I must defend my freedom at the barrel of a gun.
That's because others have already done it for you.
Posted by Urgutha Forka]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:53:15 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]> Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:15:25 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]> Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:36:36 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]> Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 05:16:44 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]> Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 05:10:43 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]> Posted by JulietteF]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:27:52 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]>
People are going crazy because they can't figure out why they can't be anyone. Why no matter what they do they end up broke, bankrupt, without a home or hope. Well, stop listening to the propaganda would be good first step.

Honestly, it's taken my entire life to see that finally the people of Washington State have enough sense, enough balls, to not only give gays equality but to also start to throw out the bullshit about smoking pot. However, you notice that the Federal Govcorp hasn't exactly given it's blessing has it? Oh sure, they don't have any problem with letting gays get married, that's a legality they can deal with, but pot is something else. There's a reason beyond all convention that issue exists.

Yet once more...right in front of you own damn eyes you can't see what's going on. Like once you disarm then everything will be OK...Right? Yea, that's why while you all are getting ready to toss out another part of the bill of rights, the laws are being rewritten by the lobbists to change State Laws to match Federal Laws; so that they can help you. Never mind what the people want...yet again, lets toss out the right to not have a jack boot put up your ass...sheeze!

Interesting isn't it that right after Washington State passes this measure we get these murders. What, you think your little demonstration at WTO couldn't and wouldn't have been handled differently if your parents didn't have ways of fighting back. You kids need to wake up to the reality of the world around you. Go ahead and give up your rights. See where that gets you when you can't get jobs to pay back those student loans that they already know there aren't jobs enough for.

While you are all so quick to toss out your right to protect and defend your own lives and those of you loved ones you didn't notice that Canada's High Court ruled against two main Unions seeking an injunction to prevent the importation of Chinese Labor. LOL!

If you think all these other countries are so wonderful then you should move to them. Canada is close, but of course you have be worth a bit of money, and you have to have some valued and sought after service. So, you can't run, you can't hide, you can't get a decent paying job if you can get a job, and now you want to toss your right to defend yourselves out the window while "they" have their lobbists rewrite all the laws. Again...Brilliant.


Posted by Citizen X]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 01:52:03 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others]]> Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:28:04 -0800 The Stranger