Don't Read to Your Children

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

4.5 deaths per 100000 isn't that much.

If you're an American, you're more likely to die from obesity than being shot.

 

 

My citation says 10 per 100,000 deaths. Personally, I do not look it as numbers so much as I do lives. Do you realize that 10 deaths per 100,000, if we were to apply that to Obsidian forums as an example, means ten of us would be gone right now. Every life should be valued. I know that sounds corny, but think about yourself, all your uniqueness and all your stories and opinions you'd like to tell, and every single other human on earth is exactly as unique. The phrase "you are special, just like everyone" is infact not a paradox.

 

10 per 100000 deaths in the US are due to guns?

 

Last study I looked at(http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/809516) shows obesity being responsible for 18.2% of deaths. That's 18200 per 100000. Being obese kills 1820x the rate of a machine designed to kill. I'd say violence is certainly isn't much, and obesity is easier to address both culturally and legally than guns, which are protected by an amendment and one of the most effective political lobbies in the world.

 

As someone who has personally suffered with weight issues, including obesity, I can say that it is much worse than the statistically insignificant damage gun violence causes, in that it renders the lives of those who suffer with it plagued with health problems and a sense of worthlessness. Addressing the issues that cause obesity, such as the crap food available to low-income households or the lack of education in nutrition and fitness is also easier to do than touch gun ownership.

 

 

I always  notice that when I visit the USA..you have the most beautiful people in the world but also seemingly the most obese 

 

 

I didn't see one single obese person in NY. Along the Tennessee/North Carolina border...about every second one.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Meshugger

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Addressing the issues that cause obesity, such as the crap food available to low-income households or the lack of education in nutrition and fitness is also easier to do than touch gun ownership.

 

...How exactly would you solve the problem of crap food being available to low-income households? By taking said crap food away from them? 

[Malcador]

Educate them on better food choices and perhaps provide assistance for them to afford better foods via something like GMI or some sort of public food program. Or perhaps just focus on the kids and feed them at schools, can get 2/3rds of their meals managed that way.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Malcador

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Addressing the issues that cause obesity, such as the crap food available to low-income households or the lack of education in nutrition and fitness is also easier to do than touch gun ownership.

 

 

...How exactly would you solve the problem of crap food being available to low-income households? By taking said crap food away from them? 

1. Make sure cheap healthy alternatives are available

2. Do a better job on educating children on nutrition

[Amentep]

I didn't see one single obese person in NY. Along the Tennessee/North Carolina border...about every second one.

New York came up with a way to discourage obesity in the 1980s. You have to be fit to live there now...

 

 

...weirdly, it never caught on anywhere else.

[JadedWolf]

 

 

Addressing the issues that cause obesity, such as the crap food available to low-income households or the lack of education in nutrition and fitness is also easier to do than touch gun ownership.

 

...How exactly would you solve the problem of crap food being available to low-income households? By taking said crap food away from them? 

1. Make sure cheap healthy alternatives are available

2. Do a better job on educating children on nutrition

 

 

Good luck with that, when every billboard out there reminds them that there are far more yummie things out there than fruit and veggies.

[Blarghagh]

The problem isn't that they're yummie, the problem is that they're cheap. Look at where we live. A healthy sandwich will be upwards of 4 euros compared to 1.50 for a giant bag of fries.

[Longknife]

 

 

4.5 deaths per 100000 isn't that much.

If you're an American, you're more likely to die from obesity than being shot.

 

 

My citation says 10 per 100,000 deaths. Personally, I do not look it as numbers so much as I do lives. Do you realize that 10 deaths per 100,000, if we were to apply that to Obsidian forums as an example, means ten of us would be gone right now. Every life should be valued. I know that sounds corny, but think about yourself, all your uniqueness and all your stories and opinions you'd like to tell, and every single other human on earth is exactly as unique. The phrase "you are special, just like everyone" is infact not a paradox.

 

10 per 100000 deaths in the US are due to guns?

 

Last study I looked at(http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/809516) shows obesity being responsible for 18.2% of deaths. That's 18200 per 100000. Being obese kills 1820x the rate of a machine designed to kill. I'd say violence is certainly isn't much, and obesity is easier to address both culturally and legally than guns, which are protected by an amendment and one of the most effective political lobbies in the world.

 

As someone who has personally suffered with weight issues, including obesity, I can say that it is much worse than the statistically insignificant damage gun violence causes, in that it renders the lives of those who suffer with it plagued with health problems and a sense of worthlessness. Addressing the issues that cause obesity, such as the crap food available to low-income households or the lack of education in nutrition and fitness is also easier to do than touch gun ownership.

 

 

 

And this makes guns a positive change to the country how?

 

You have highlighted another problem within the USA. Just because it's a more widespread and severe problem does not mean guns are now golden tools of righteous justice, and it is still very questionable if they save more lives than they kill as things stand.

 

It's interesting that, I actually am fairly ok with the concept of M.A.D. because I do not realistically expect any country to be so stupid as to launch a nuke. Lo and behold, Russia and the USA - for all their faults - have avoided just that despite tons of turmoil. But these are educated people elected into office and kept in check by multiple other educated people, also elected into office. Not to say that there's no such thing as a bad politician, just to say that the entire system is designed to severely diminish such a decision ever happening.

 

  Guns on the other hand are like M.A.D. on a smaller scale, the problem being any idiot can own a gun. Tell me, what do you do about the George Zimmerman's of the world who wanna make believe they're action movie cops?

 

Thus, regulation.

 

And for the fourth time, just wanna keep highlighting that no one has addressed that I've repeatedly asked for an example of assault rifles or other military-grade firearms ever being neccesary for civilian use.

 

 

 

1. Make sure cheap healthy alternatives are available

2. Do a better job on educating children on nutrition

 

 

Off-topic, but sadly not that simple.

 

Obesity is also a result of the mess that is the entire Midwest and Central United States. Those states were built too stretched out with no sense of centralization in the town design. Everyone was high on how much free land they had, and apparently no one had a sense for "hey it might be convenient if I don't like 30 minutes from the store." The result? You have to drive everywhere, and I promise you there's cheap fast food along every major road. Every time my mom comes to visit Germany, she swears she's actually eating more, but it's actual food and the towns in Germany all have pedestrian zones where vehicles are not allowed, so you're forced to walk, and lo and behold she loses weight every trip. So simple, yet so effective.

 

  Sadly, solving obesity for those states is not so simple as it requires some serious redesigning of the average Midwestern towns.

 

As a side note, it's also true that as bad as McDonald's is, it's also a "lifesaver" in it's own ways, because many poverty-stricken families are able to make ends meet thanks to their dollar menus.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Longknife

[Hurlshort]

Educate them on better food choices and perhaps provide assistance for them to afford better foods via something like GMI or some sort of public food program. Or perhaps just focus on the kids and feed them at schools, can get 2/3rds of their meals managed that way.

 

Oddly enough, this is exactly what is already happening.  Some schools have even gone so far as to offer food programs during the summers and other breaks.  

 

Nutrition isn't a new part of school curriculum, either.  It is a standard part of the educational process from an early age to High School.  It doesn't mean kids listen.

 

edit:  I should rephrase that.  Young kids listen, but it is not reinforced at home, and eventually they tune it out.  

Edited May 12, 2015 by Hurlshot

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

4.5 deaths per 100000 isn't that much.

If you're an American, you're more likely to die from obesity than being shot.

 

 

My citation says 10 per 100,000 deaths. Personally, I do not look it as numbers so much as I do lives. Do you realize that 10 deaths per 100,000, if we were to apply that to Obsidian forums as an example, means ten of us would be gone right now. Every life should be valued. I know that sounds corny, but think about yourself, all your uniqueness and all your stories and opinions you'd like to tell, and every single other human on earth is exactly as unique. The phrase "you are special, just like everyone" is infact not a paradox.

 

10 per 100000 deaths in the US are due to guns?

 

Last study I looked at(http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/809516) shows obesity being responsible for 18.2% of deaths. That's 18200 per 100000. Being obese kills 1820x the rate of a machine designed to kill. I'd say violence is certainly isn't much, and obesity is easier to address both culturally and legally than guns, which are protected by an amendment and one of the most effective political lobbies in the world.

 

As someone who has personally suffered with weight issues, including obesity, I can say that it is much worse than the statistically insignificant damage gun violence causes, in that it renders the lives of those who suffer with it plagued with health problems and a sense of worthlessness. Addressing the issues that cause obesity, such as the crap food available to low-income households or the lack of education in nutrition and fitness is also easier to do than touch gun ownership.

 

 

 

And this makes guns a positive change to the country how?

 

You have highlighted another problem within the USA. Just because it's a more widespread and severe problem does not mean guns are now golden tools of righteous justice, and it is still very questionable if they save more lives than they kill as things stand.

 

It's interesting that, I actually am fairly ok with the concept of M.A.D. because I do not realistically expect any country to be so stupid as to launch a nuke. Lo and behold, Russia and the USA - for all their faults - have avoided just that despite tons of turmoil. But these are educated people elected into office and kept in check by multiple other educated people, also elected into office. Not to say that there's no such thing as a bad politician, just to say that the entire system is designed to severely diminish such a decision ever happening.

 

  Guns on the other hand are like M.A.D. on a smaller scale, the problem being any idiot can own a gun. Tell me, what do you do about the George Zimmerman's of the world who wanna make believe they're action movie cops?

 

Thus, regulation.

 

And for the fourth time, just wanna keep highlighting that no one has addressed that I've repeatedly asked for an example of assault rifles or other military-grade firearms ever being neccesary for civilian use.

 

Look, in general i am not the biggest pro-gun guy, but you're not convincing me to be anti-gun either. Why do you want to ban something as fun as this?

 

 

I would wager that the problem is deeper than just the gun itself and starting to regulate gun ownership will not magically change things, as we already talked about with current and inherited cultural values. The usage of guns have to change to something else than personal protection, but that would demand that people would have to feel less unsafe. But why re people feeling unsafe? Because of lack of social cohension. Why? Because lack of trust. What can change the lack of trust? I dunno, but i am working on it.

 

George Zimmerman got shot at yesterday, but the guy missed btw.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 And this makes guns a positive change to the country how?

Guns aren't a change, they've been here since the nation's founding as has been the right to bear them.

 

You have highlighted another problem within the USA. Just because it's a more widespread and severe problem does not mean guns are now golden tools of righteous justice, and it is still very questionable if they save more lives than they kill as things stand.

As my 1EE7 associate implied, the same could be said of motor vehicles. In fact, the death toll for car crashes is about the same as gun deaths (http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview), so why allow one and not the other?

 

 

Guns on the other hand are like M.A.D. on a smaller scale, the problem being any idiot can own a gun. Tell me, what do you do about the George Zimmerman's of the world who wanna make believe they're action movie cops?

Ensure that an individual can't possibly murder someone without consequence if they kill someone when no witnesses besides the individual in question exist and the individual in question was told by the authorities to back off. What would you do if Zimmerman had used a knife or brick instead of a gun?

 

And for the fourth time, just wanna keep highlighting that no one has addressed that I've repeatedly asked for an example of assault rifles or other military-grade firearms ever being neccesary for civilian use.

Why does it have to be a necessity?

 

 

 

 

1. Make sure cheap healthy alternatives are available

2. Do a better job on educating children on nutrition

 

Off-topic, but sadly not that simple.

I was asked specifically about the availability of cheap crap food, not obesity as a whole.

 

Obesity as a whole requires better nutritional education and public alternatives to paid private gyms, on a widespread scale.

 

As a side note, it's also true that as bad as McDonald's is, it's also a "lifesaver" in it's own ways, because many poverty-stricken families are able to make ends meet thanks to their dollar menus.

Not really, most poor families buy boxed foods from places like Food Town rather than fast food. For a large family, paying 1.08 per burger isn't as cheap as a box of instant food.

 

Hence cheap healthy alternatives being needed.

[Nonek]

Had Ged facing the great Dragon of Pendor tonight, with appropriate snorts and booming pronouncements it's fair to say that I scared my offspring half to death, they absolutely loved every minute of the story however, at least I think so considering their big eyes peering out from the covers at me. Heard them fiercely whispering about it when I came to my study.

 

I may make a few well placed edits after this however, the story gets quite horrifying when the Shadow finds Ged and a little levity may be required.

 

Edit: Thought i'd posted in the wrong thread for a moment.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Nonek

[Mr. Magniloquent]

• Self-defense is the ultimate declaration of self ownership. To deny someone the most effective means of self-defense, is to deny them self ownership.
• The State has in many cases ruled that it has no obligation to protect nor save you.
• The 2nd amendment is about keeping society armed against their governments. If you do not understand why, which genocide of the month should I reference? Do you prefer the democratic brand of tyrannous murder, or the autocratic? The 20th century alone was a MASSIVE example of this.
• Criminals do not regard the law, so prohibition only disarms the lawful, and criminalizes those who are not.
• Prohibition has never worked in human history.

That's just a brief list. Did I miss anything?

[Elerond]

• The 2nd amendment is about keeping society armed against their governments. If you do not understand why, which genocide of the month should I reference? Do you prefer the democratic brand of tyrannous murder, or the autocratic? The 20th century alone was a MASSIVE example of this

 

Most of if not all the genocides are done by majority of country's population that decided to kill one or more of country's minority populations or by occupation force of another country.

 

Like for example how people of USA did several genocidal actions against native Americans, whose lands they conquered.

 

Second example could be Nazi-Germany, where majority of population decided to first isolate and then kill lots of its minority populations, Jews as main target.

 

Third example could be Armenian Genocide, where Ottoman Empire systematically killed its Armenian minority.

 

Forth example could be Rwandan Genocide where Hutu majority population decided to kill minority Tutsi and Hutu population.

 

So genocides aren't pure governmental actions but actions which governments often participate because of will of the people. And weapons and fighting back don't necessary prevent such, as it is usually larger and more powerful population that kills smaller populations/weaker populations, which is reason why they usually have support from their government for their actions.  People owning weapons can help them to stop conquering force from another country, but most like they would just help in genocides that are committed by country's majority people against its minority people. 

[Namutree]

 People owning weapons can help them to stop conquering force from another country, but most like they would just help in genocides that are committed by country's majority people against its minority people. 

 

This seems silly to me. Gun prohibition or not the government will have guns. The only way to be able to put up any meaningful resistance at all is if your population is armed.

 

 

 

So genocides aren't pure governmental actions but actions which governments often participate because of will of the people. 

Often? Can you name me 1 genocide that didn't involve a government?

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I responded to your comment, but this discourse is ultimately tangent to the topic, so is hidden in spoiler.

 

 

Any time there has been a targeted population, they have either been disarmed, or attempted to have been disarmed first. Specific references to ethnic cleansing are beyond the point. Enshrining rights to self defense is primarily motivated to be a check on state power. The reigns of state power will always be grasped by any entity seeking to impose its will authoritatively. Even the US American Revolution only had about 5% active support of the population. Human apathy is astronomical. Successfully seizing the reigns of The State is not necessarily representative of majority thought. People outside of The West have long understood that Government != "The People". In our age of police states, Westerners are beginning to understand this. All of this is beside the point though.

 

 

If you cannot effectively defend yourself, then it is severely challenging to assert self ownership. Self-defense and self ownership are inseparable for this reason. Any attack or attempt to debilitate one is an offense against the other. My rights are not negotiable to some craven and illogical person's ill conceived notions, nor the predations career liars and sociopaths. The End.

[Elerond]

 

 People owning weapons can help them to stop conquering force from another country, but most like they would just help in genocides that are committed by country's majority people against its minority people. 

 

This seems silly to me. Gun prohibition or not the government will have guns. The only way to be able to put up any meaningful resistance at all is if your population is armed.

 

 

 

So genocides aren't pure governmental actions but actions which governments often participate because of will of the people. 

Often? Can you name me 1 genocide that didn't involve a government?

 

 

Whose are those that use those weapons that governments have? Whose are those that fund governments weapons? Whose are those that ignore it when government uses their weapons? Governments don't have power without people, either people from country itself or another country that lends/uses it power let people supporting the government to do what it wants to do. At least still now as we don't have robot armies. And it was not government that made Hutu people kill their neighbors. It was not government that voted to get Jews isolated in ghettos and confiscate their property. It was not government that decided to kill people that didn't give their lands to settlers, etc.

 

And for example to you question Haiti's genocide of French Creoles was done by revolting slaves, but of course you can argue that leaders of the slaves had become government and that government was behind that genocide. Another example could be Caste War of Yucatán where Maya people fought against European decent people that had economical and political power and both sides committed genocidal actions, but again you can argue that leaders of Maya people were actually government.

 

And so in the point, government is leaders of people, they can't do anything without people. So people owning guns can give people that live country ability fight against other people that live in the country and want to for some reason to kill them, but when we speak about genocidal actions then power difference between fighting factions is so big that it probably would not matter if those people that are systematically slaughtered have guns, as they are overpowered with too big factor.

 

People owning guns make it easier to people to revolt, start civil war and create new government if they think that current one don't represent them as they should. And in civil war situation it is quite typical that military and it arsenal split in some distribution between every side of the civil war, because military consist on people of the country, which usually means that they are as divided about issues of the country as any other people in the country.

[Tsuga C]

Especially around the end after they defeated IT as kids. The proceeding scene with Beverly and the gang is quite screwed up. I wonder why Stephen King even had that scene in the book.

He was watching kids on a playground and writing on a laptop. There was this one little hottie he fancied and....

[Nonek]

Finished A Wizard of Earthsea tonight, am thinking about Lord Dunsany next, his purple prose might be quite appropriate for dramatic reading to the little ones.