Lurker > _RETS_

Naysaspace posted...

People are not their addictions. Revive, always. Anyone who disagrees is likely an asshole sociopath

The first sentence is a meaningless platitude. If someone is going to do that with a neglected kid in the car, they are exactly as low as their addiction makes them seem.

shockthemonkey posted...

There is no moral dilemma here. Youre just lacking morals.

Maybe so.

How about if the kid is going to go back to them? A Gone Baby Gone type thing

LJRENEGADE posted...

I would save them if I could and was in that position. I just feel its not my place to decide if someone gets to live or die, especially since I've never seen them before and know almost nothing about them.

I feel like in that very specific scenario you know plenty. If it was my job to revive them, like it was the cop's, I would probably do it to do my job, but I would be doing a disservice to society at large.

Tmaster148 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Most people also gain energy from interacting with people

Only if you aren't an introvert.

Nah, not really. I don't particularly like talking to people most of the time and am not very outwardly social but for work I have to be good at it and will leave interactions feeling better than before.

yemmy posted...

they might have been just really fucked up and woke up, people survive od's without narcan

Yeah, but they were revived in the story the user told.

If they woke up fine, I just don't think I would revive them

TheVipaGTS posted...

Why would you ever let them die? The kid will be taken care of and likely go into foster care regardless. What good does letting them die do at all? Fuck is wrong with you...

Because the type of person it takes to do that when they have the responsibility of taking care of a child has no value. It is for the overall improvement of society.

It is normal, but it is not an acceptable way to live. Your body needs movement to thrive and feel "alive". Most people also gain energy from interacting with people, laughing, etc. It is hard to get any of that when you are stuck in a cubicle.

Saw a thread on Reddit about fucked up things users have witnessed and there were obviously a lot of EMTs and first responders commenting.

One mentioned seeing a couple unconscious from a heroin overdose in a car with their infant in the back seat covered in unchanged filth. He said the police officer there stood for a moment with Narcan to revive them, but was clearly contemplating whether or not he should revive them or just let them die.

Kid is going into foster care anyway, so I would personally just say good riddance.

Do you ever wonder why shit like this is constantly happening to you?

fusespliff posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

fusespliff posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

SusanGreenEyes posted...

I'm seeing the word "possibly" too many times on page one, as in "possibly a violation of the first amendment".
If you aren't sure of the laws, you need a lawyer.

It's showing respect to the judge. I am asking them to interpret it. That's literally the entire point of making the petition. For them to review it. I want to be as respectful as possible because they don't have to.

If only you possessed the necessary insight to realize that if you conducted yourself this way in your everyday life, you wouldn't even be in this mess.

Most people aren't relevant enough for me to care.

Imagine a 30 year old unemployed living in a garage bum describing others as irrelevant.
Oh wait, we don't need to imagine as you just did.

No kidding. This dude contributes nothing in life other than laughs on CE at how pitiful he is. He is saying everyone else stinks while he is covered in shit.

FrisbeeDude posted...

_RETS_ posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

I just reread the statement and nowhere does it imply that by not buying black, you're contributing to white supremacy.

Also, if you don't think the history of American capitalism is rooted in white supremacy, you're lying to yourself

"Rather than lining the pockets of Trump and other White-supremacist capitalists"

You're right. It doesn't imply it. It outright says it.

So you can only buy from black or white businesses?

You really don't have to pretend to be stupid.

FrisbeeDude posted...

I just reread the statement and nowhere does it imply that by not buying black, you're contributing to white supremacy.

Also, if you don't think the history of American capitalism is rooted in white supremacy, you're lying to yourself

"Rather than lining the pockets of Trump and other White-supremacist capitalists"

You're right. It doesn't imply it. It outright says it.

The issue isn't advocating for blacks to spend with black businesses this holiday season, it is suggesting that by not doing that you are supporting white supremacy, which is bullshit. If black people want to spend their money in black businesses, that's great and makes the community stronger. But if they also want to shop wherever the fuck they want or if white people want to spend their money wherever, it isn't a problem and it certainly isn't reinforcing any kind of supremacy.

metralo posted...

r4X0r posted...

The president wants to keep terrorism out of America. ....letists whine.

so is he doing something about white people and our gun problem? if he isn't then clearly he doesn't care about terrorism, he just dislikes brown people.

Do you really want to get into which race is more responsible for gun violence?

Super Saiyan 3 Goku posted...

r4X0r posted...

The president wants to keep terrorism out of America. ....letists whine.

Super Saiyan 3 Goku posted...

Ah, so it's okay to discriminate on the basis of religion to promote nationalism and security.

High school history class told me that's called fascism.

Then you went to a pretty shitty high school.

Nobody cares about your opinion. Promoting islamophobia via these retweets coupled with enacting legislation to ban an entire religious group in the name of nationalism is draconian.

Like What?

This won't ever happen nor is there a reason for it to happen. Even if he wants to argue that people abuse it, people abuse any medicine, that doesn't mean you just stop treating shit altogether.

Does she call it a 'maybe shower"?

cerealbox760 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Liberals are predominantly the ones who b**** about gentrification.

Predominantly? how are you quantifying numbers? Tell us.

Conservatives work to maintain the status quo. You can make the argument conservatives dont want change in their communities because thats what often happens. Conservatives are more than likely move out of cities. Lots of blacks/latinos/asians are conservative but they vote blue for obvious reasons. That doesn't make them liberal, only targets of liberal pandering.

And here it doesn't matter because its not a left vs right issue. Everything cannot be explained as right vs left. ditch the tribal mentality because it counterproductive.

Yes, liberals are usually the only ones bitching about gentrification. This isnt even debatable.

cerealbox760 posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

I'm convinced that liberals only like throwing money at a problem when it won't produce any results, and even then that money has to come from taxes. But people voluntarily investing their own money in an area to open up new business and improve the neighborhood? We can't have that!

How is this a left vs right issue?

Liberals are predominantly the ones who bitch about gentrification. Ironically, gentrified areas are largely crammed with liberals who wait to complain about gentrification until they are in their new cozy and modern apartments.

cjsdowg posted...

chrono625 posted...

What the f*** does coal have to do with gentrification/topic at hand?

Look at what _RETS_ stated. He talked about changing with the times are being left behind. We are going back as nation to get coal miners working.

Coal should do the same. If they can still make a living and maintain a personally acceptable standard of living doing what they're doing then fine. If Not, it is time to apply their expertise in other areas, figure how it applies to evolutions of the same area, and figure something out for themselves.

If there is a better, less costly, and longer term more effective solution for something then either adapt and get on board or be stuck in your shit and have people cry on your behalf.

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

_RETS_ posted...

cjsdowg posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Then they can learn to adjust and seek the jobs instead of people b****ing about gentrification on their behalf. If there are open jobs, they can fill them. If they are too poorly skilled or educated, they can work in the construction of the places housing those new jobs.

You can't just say "that" they aren't getting the jobs without considering the reasons why.

If they are all ill-equipped, why should the neighborhood just be left to rot when it could be made better and serve a greater number of people that currently live there in squalor? They can adjust and take advantage of the opportunities, just like you, me, or anyone else, or move their s*** hole across town until more opportunity arises and passes them by.

Do you say that about coal?

Couldn't care less about coal.

How about coalslaw?

Not a fan

cjsdowg posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Then they can learn to adjust and seek the jobs instead of people b****ing about gentrification on their behalf. If there are open jobs, they can fill them. If they are too poorly skilled or educated, they can work in the construction of the places housing those new jobs.

You can't just say "that" they aren't getting the jobs without considering the reasons why.

If they are all ill-equipped, why should the neighborhood just be left to rot when it could be made better and serve a greater number of people that currently live there in squalor? They can adjust and take advantage of the opportunities, just like you, me, or anyone else, or move their s*** hole across town until more opportunity arises and passes them by.

Do you say that about coal?

Couldn't care less about coal.

cjsdowg posted...

_RETS_ posted...

What the coffee shop posted was dumb and intentionally inflammatory, for sure, but you really can't argue the merits of gentrification. Not only is there ongoing employment opportunity, but construction and everything else that goes along with the influx also creates jobs. Get a job period, get a better job than what you have, get a second job, all scarce opportunities before scary gentrification came to destroy lives.

What happens to the people who have lived in those places for a while. In most cases they are not getting those jobs. People who had access to jobs in other places are getting those jobs.

Then they can learn to adjust and seek the jobs instead of people bitching about gentrification on their behalf. If there are open jobs, they can fill them. If they are too poorly skilled or educated, they can work in the construction of the places housing those new jobs.

You can't just say "that" they aren't getting the jobs without considering the reasons why.

If they are all ill-equipped, why should the neighborhood just be left to rot when it could be made better and serve a greater number of people that currently live there in squalor? They can adjust and take advantage of the opportunities, just like you, me, or anyone else, or move their shit hole across town until more opportunity arises and passes them by.

Anyway, the MCU won't stop but it seems fairly obvious Feige is referring to this current 3-phase arc of the MCU.

XXHornDogXX posted...

The idea of a relaunch of the MCU is just absurd. The entire MCU still feels relatively new imo and the movies keep pumping out like every 3-6 months, its not like weve went 10 years without a MCU movie and need a reboot...

I love superhero movies because theyre the only quality movies these days, but eventually this fad needs to stop. Its almost as bad as the FPS craze in video games.

What a wrong opinion to have.

chrono625 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

The discussion ITT is about gentrification as a whole.

We can always talk about all those well paying yoga instructor or dog motel jobs then, if that suits you.

Sure, if you want to straw man the situation. Or unless you think jobs like that are beneath people who have no jobs at all.

Just seems like if a bunch of new people coming in and getting jobs are able to somehow work their way into job openings, people who don't want to be displaced can too. In what way is more opportunities and a nicer area a bad thing? It's not.

Agreed.

Imo it's more insensitive to think that the people that lived there should just quit instead of trying to take advantage of the boom in their area. Or just assume they will be kicked out.

As others have said, if you own a home and the area becomes more desirable, congrats your home just doubled or tripled in value.

Had a minimum wage job or low paying job before? Or had continuous unemployment? Well congrats cause with the influx of money and new residents comes new jobs and opportunities.

As with my Brooklyn scenario, industrial and urban areas once gentrified became hot locations for major stores like IKEA, whole foods and other stores. A lot of independently owned restaraunts, food markets and coffee shops.

This won't happen for everyone. But don't be so ignorant to the fact that opportunities open up to those who want to take them.

What the coffee shop posted was dumb and intentionally inflammatory, for sure, but you really can't argue the merits of gentrification. Not only is there ongoing employment opportunity, but construction and everything else that goes along with the influx also creates jobs. Get a job period, get a better job than what you have, get a second job, all scarce opportunities before scary gentrification came to destroy lives.

A_Good_Boy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

The discussion ITT is about gentrification as a whole.

We can always talk about all those well paying yoga instructor or dog motel jobs then, if that suits you.

Sure, if you want to straw man the situation. Or unless you think jobs like that are beneath people who have no jobs at all.

Just seems like if a bunch of new people coming in and getting jobs are able to somehow work their way into job openings, people who don't want to be displaced can too. In what way is more opportunities and a nicer area a bad thing? It's not.

A_Good_Boy posted...

The discussion ITT is about gentrification as a whole.

A_Good_Boy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

cjsdowg posted...

Spooking posted...

I wouldn't use the sign if I was the business owner, but I also see no problem with gentrification.

I am guessing you are not one of the people losing everything.

What stops these people who are "losing everything" from getting any of the new jobs that gentrification brings to the area and upping their station in life? Other people seem to be able to fill those open positions. Is there maybe a certain complacency present?

Why is making a shit hole of a neighborhood a better place to live a bad thing? If a few people can no longer stay, oh well. Many more people can and many who had no opportunities before now have opportunities.

Well paying jobs at a coffee shop?

How about any jobs they don't currently have? Are new businesses exclusively coffee shops? Gentrification brings an influx of new businesses.

But it's almost as if some of you want 2 things for the poor. Either they can live and die solely reliant on handouts or they can be left to rot in their shit hole neighborhoods because that isn't as bad as gentrification and it still lets you grand stand about how bad they have it and how evil rich people are.

The world isn't in black and white, don't frame it that way.

You mean like suggesting that the only jobs born from gentrification are from a single coffee shop frames It?

Do any of you guy have Wing Daddy's around you? I fucking love that place.

A_Good_Boy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

cjsdowg posted...

Spooking posted...

I wouldn't use the sign if I was the business owner, but I also see no problem with gentrification.

I am guessing you are not one of the people losing everything.

What stops these people who are "losing everything" from getting any of the new jobs that gentrification brings to the area and upping their station in life? Other people seem to be able to fill those open positions. Is there maybe a certain complacency present?

Why is making a shit hole of a neighborhood a better place to live a bad thing? If a few people can no longer stay, oh well. Many more people can and many who had no opportunities before now have opportunities.

Well paying jobs at a coffee shop?

How about any jobs they don't currently have? Are new businesses exclusively coffee shops? Gentrification brings an influx of new businesses.

But it's almost as if some of you want 2 things for the poor. Either they can live and die solely reliant on handouts or they can be left to rot in their shit hole neighborhoods because that isn't as bad as gentrification and it still lets you grand stand about how bad they have it and how evil rich people are.

cjsdowg posted...

Spooking posted...

I wouldn't use the sign if I was the business owner, but I also see no problem with gentrification.

I am guessing you are not one of the people losing everything.

What stops these people who are "losing everything" from getting any of the new jobs that gentrification brings to the area and upping their station in life? Other people seem to be able to fill those open positions. Is there maybe a certain complacency present?

Why is making a shit hole of a neighborhood a better place to live a bad thing? If a few people can no longer stay, oh well. Many more people can and many who had no opportunities before now have opportunities.

Open it.

If you don't, in a few months you'll be completely over her anyway and still wonder what it said.

LordRazziel posted...

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/article/427985/medias-inflated-mass-shootings-count-wildly-misleading-ian-tuttle

http://www.politifact.com/california/article/2017/oct/04/mass-shooting-what-does-it-mean/

I was under the impression that this was common knowledge.

KStateKing17 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

KStateKing17 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

metralo posted...

Spooking posted...

Culture. Most mass shooters are gang bangers who wild out and shoot a bunch of people (usually around 3-6) before fleeing. They think they own the streets that US tax payers paid for. They think this way due to bad parenting.

its sad blatant racism is the norm on CE these days

So gang-related shootings don't account for the vast majority of mass shootings?

These are two different things

No they aren't. When people cite things like there have been as many mass shootings as days so far this year gang violence is included.

Remove that and the number plummets. Still way too high mind you, but not nearly to the extent it is sensationalized to be.

Every gang related shooting doesn't involve more than one victim. A mass shooting would have at least 5+

Even that might be low.

No, not everyone, but enough cause injuries to enough people during the shooting to greatly inflate that number, which the media loves to conflate with the horrendous acts in Vegas and Texas to make it seem like mass shootings conducted by white males are much higher than they actually are.

KStateKing17 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

metralo posted...

Spooking posted...

Culture. Most mass shooters are gang bangers who wild out and shoot a bunch of people (usually around 3-6) before fleeing. They think they own the streets that US tax payers paid for. They think this way due to bad parenting.

its sad blatant racism is the norm on CE these days

So gang-related shootings don't account for the vast majority of mass shootings?

These are two different things

No they aren't. When people cite things like there have been as many mass shootings as days so far this year gang violence is included.

Remove that and the number plummets. Still way too high mind you, but not nearly to the extent it is sensationalized to be.

metralo posted...

Spooking posted...

Culture. Most mass shooters are gang bangers who wild out and shoot a bunch of people (usually around 3-6) before fleeing. They think they own the streets that US tax payers paid for. They think this way due to bad parenting.

its sad blatant racism is the norm on CE these days

So gang-related shootings don't account for the vast majority of mass shootings?

CruelBuffalo posted...

fire810 posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

This is a war on all modern civilization. It's not just about the US and backlash to George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq and drone strikes and stuff. There are people out there who seem to think that the US has caused every problem in this part of the world, but stories like this highlight how the problem of radical Islamic terrorism is something that has goals of conquest not at all related to the US.

its almost like the religion was founded by a conquering warlord or something.

So Christianity should be abolished because of all the murder and war it caused? No? Then shut up dude. Yes radical Islam needs to be addressed but to act like its something inherent in islam is so fucking stupid unless you hate all religion

Is there really much of a comparison between modern Christianity and modern Islam?