TakeYouToTasker

Because a mass shooting is defined by the FBI as any incident in which 3 or more people are shot in a public place, and typical gang violence is lumped together with incidents like Sandy Hook and Las Vegas while the motives are disparate.

The market determines the value of the product, and the owner of the product can't charge more than people are willing to pay, or they won't make money. If I determined that I wanted to go to the event more than I wanted my $100, I would spend the money; if I determined the money was worth more to me then I wouldn't. It's exactly that simple.

Mass shootings data isn't particularly helpful in any argument, much less this one, given how "mass shootings" are defined for the purposes of collecting that data.

That's not how data works. You need to look at crime data. For example, a 2008 report on juvenile crimes released by the FBI informs us that black youths accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58% for homicide and 67% for robbery despite making up only 16% of the juvenile population. This isn't because blacks are biologically predisposed to crime, but because crime is a socio-economic issue rather than a race issue, and black Americans are more likely to be poor, which is due in part to the legacy of slavery, but in larger part to the perverse incentives of the welfare state, originally targeted at blacks under the Johnson Administration, which served to decimate the black family. The unfortunate reality we are left with is that blacks commit an absurdly disproportionate amount of crime, and therefor expose themselves to a disproportionate amount of policing, given the nature of policing being most necessary in high crime areas. So, while there may be inequality in the raw data when you look at it on it's face, it does not demonstrate inequity.

"At your expense"? Really? You could always, you know, stop purchasing their product.

I hadn't considered that, but you're probably right. I do remember, a few years back, some neo-feminist movement to deny men sex until they agreed to pegging in order to teach men... something...

If Harvard wants to teach women to take it in the ass, I'm moving to Cambridge.

I reserve judgment in this case, as I do in all cases, unless/until evidence can be presented. With that said, I find the nature of these allegations disturbing, given the timing, and the rush to condemn the accused in absence of any evidence. Is it OK to attempt to destroy individuals by making baseless charges of pedophilia/rape etc. because of a modern illiberal insistence that we "believe the accuser", especially for political gain? This is an ugly political environment, and an "ends justify the means" philosophy under which anything is excusable as long as it results in political victory seems like the unfortunate likely result of our current state of affairs.

Again, post the damn test you knucklehead. Your entire thread is completely useless until you add it. If you do decide to add it, you can improve the quality of the thread to mostly useless. If I had to guess, I'd say he'd probably fall somewhere into the authoritarian right quadrant.

Yes you do. It's a traditional four sector graph that plots your political leanings, you fall somewhere on it, even if it's completely centralized.

You didn't think to, you know, include a link to the test in question?

A bit freaky, and probably outside of the norm, but nothing I've read here indicates Louis CK did anything wrong. He didn't force himself on anyone, and asked for consent.

You posted a misleading title linking an article about a situation already being discussed in another thread. That's no one's fault but yours. Do better.

Terrible and misleading title, and subject matter being discussed in another thread. Do better.

Confront? Really? Not "engage in thoughtful discussion" or "seek dialogue with", but "confront"? Only complete !@#$s do that kind of thing.

Clarence Thomas makes a very compelling argument that affirmative action is injurious to those intended to benefit from it.

I assume it must have occurred to you that someone who found your argument unconvincing might feel you've understated the evils of Communism? Communism has been a much more enduring blight, and is still the cause of some of the worst cases of actual real systemic oppression even today. In addition to it's "concentrated" immediate damage, it's long term seep has penetrated the mainstream of our political and economic discussion in ways Richard Spencer can only write erotic fan fiction about. Nazism, as bad as it was, was doomed to fail because it was inherently an "us vs. them" philosophy with a very small us, and a very large them. Conversely Communism is inherently enduring because it seeks to pit 95% of the world against the other 5%.

No, I'm saying your post was comprised, nearly entirely, of an appeal to authority fallacy.

And probably 100% illegal for very good reason.

I'm fully aware of the evils of Nazism, I just think the evils of Communism are drastically understated in this particular argument.

I don't know that Nazism was inherently worse than Communism.

We aren't discussing this in a vacuum. We're discussing it in a thread about 100 years of Communism, as related to a Presidential decree declaring "Victims of Communism Day as a memorial", comparing the evils of Communism and Nazism. Or it's also possible that my sarcasm detector is on the fritz.

I'd say it doesn't matter much to the dead.