Who needs social media?

dhromed

@morbiuswilters said:
@Ronald said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@HardwareGeek said:
However, I live in one of the bluest of the blue, one of the five in which the Democratic margin of victory was more than 20%.

WA's one of the "bluest of the blue"?

STALKER ALERT

He just said it, like, an hour ago!

Dear readers, please note that the stalker alert was a mistake.

Maciejasjmj

@drurowin said:

@morbiuswilters said:
@drurowin said:
And those are probably lower-income situations

So poor people should receive inferior medical treatment?

@drurowin said:
where the proper solution would be quarantine and decontamination

Oh good, the dipshit thinks he's a public health expert now..

@drurowin said:
putting children at risk of getting autism and chlamidya from "the jabs".

[citation needed] Seriously, I didn't know there were anti-vaccine psychotics capable of using a computer and finding their way around online, but here you are..
Let's see your research proving vaccines are safe. They're not. They're like seat-belts; they kill more than they save.

So, just to recap: you believe that:

a) It's useless to have a password

b) It's useless to lock your door

c) Polio doesn't exist

d) Vaccines carry autism

e) Seatbelts kill more people than they save

...You will not be missed.

Lorne Kates

@Maciejasjmj said:

So, just to recap: you believe that:

a) It's useless to have a password

b) It's useless to lock your door

c) Polio doesn't exist

d) Vaccines carry autism

e) Seatbelts kill more people than they save

...You will not be missed.

That's just what the Jews who control the forum want you to think he believes.

mikeTheLiar

Considering you clearly had polio as a child, I consider this viewpoint of yours unexpected. I mean, that is why you have that one noodle-y arm, right?

morbiuswilters

@dhromed said:

@HardwareGeek said:
Congrats to Morbs on his 10,000^th post!

Dear lord! He's done it!
Welcome, fellow demigod! Please accept this golden purple dildo!

Once I climb you, there will be no more mountains left to climb.

morbiuswilters

@Maciejasjmj said:

So, just to recap: you believe that:

a) It's useless to have a password

b) It's useless to lock your door

c) Polio doesn't exist

d) Vaccines carry autism

e) Seatbelts kill more people than they save

...You will not be missed.

Don't forget:

f) Solaris is the best OS.

and

g) The furry thing.

error

@morbiuswilters said:

@Maciejasjmj said:
So, just to recap: you believe that:

a) It's useless to have a password

b) It's useless to lock your door

c) Polio doesn't exist

d) Vaccines carry autism

e) Seatbelts kill more people than they save

...You will not be missed.

Don't forget:

f) Solaris is the best OS.

and

g) The furry thing.

h) Police don't need guns.

morbiuswilters

@joe.edwards said:

h) Police don't need guns.

i) Nor do private citizens.

drurowin

@morbiuswilters said:

@joe.edwards said:
h) Police don't need guns.

i) Nor do private citizens.

Not even the military needs guns. The world would be a safer place without them.

locallunatic

@joe.edwards said:

@morbiuswilters said:
@Maciejasjmj said:
So, just to recap: you believe that:

a) It's useless to have a password

b) It's useless to lock your door

c) Polio doesn't exist

d) Vaccines carry autism

e) Seatbelts kill more people than they save

...You will not be missed.
Don't forget:

f) Solaris is the best OS.

and

g) The furry thing.
h) Police don't need guns.

@joe.edwards said:

Filed under: <FONT color=#698d73>When you list it all out it's obviously an act. No one can be that stupid.</FONT>

Wait it wasn't obvious before that he was just trolling with much of it? I mean in theory someone could hold some of those views in how they were originally expressed (like "I don't need a password" vs. "passwords are useless") and still be functional enough to properly express the viewpoint to people; but there is a limit on the number of them.

locallunatic

@drurowin said:

Not even the military needs guns. The world would be a safer place without them.

Oh oh, can we argue about pacifism now? As your (expressed) views on safety leave out the need for violence completely.

mikeTheLiar

@drurowin said:

@morbiuswilters said:
@joe.edwards said:
h) Police don't need guns.

i) Nor do private citizens.
Not even the military needs guns. The world would be a safer place without them.

Just out of curiosity, in your mind who does need guns? Hunters? Sexy James Bond type spies? Assassins? Gordon Freeman?

drurowin

@locallunatic said:

@joe.edwards said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Maciejasjmj said:
So, just to recap: you believe that:

a) It's useless to have a password

b) It's useless to lock your door

c) Polio doesn't exist

d) Vaccines carry autism

e) Seatbelts kill more people than they save

...You will not be missed.
Don't forget:

f) Solaris is the best OS.

and

g) The furry thing.
h) Police don't need guns.

@joe.edwards said:
Filed under: <font color="#698d73">When you list it all out it's obviously an act. No one can be that stupid.</font>

Wait it wasn't obvious before that he was just trolling with much of it? I mean in theory someone could hold some of those views in how they were originally expressed (like "I don't need a password" vs. "passwords are useless") and still be functional enough to properly express the viewpoint to people; but there is a limit on the number of them.

Three of the points above are trolling. My belief in that I don't have anything worth stealing enough to warrant the use of locks or passwords ls legit. I don't doubt the EFFECTIVENESS of passwords and house locks, I'm saying I don't have anything worth locking up. I really could care less if you went through my gmail, sent bomb threats from it or whatever. "Wasn't sent from my IP, check the headers." is a defence in court. I'll let you guys guess which remaining three of the six are trolling.

drurowin

@mikeTheLiar said:

@drurowin said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@joe.edwards said:
h) Police don't need guns.

i) Nor do private citizens.
Not even the military needs guns. The world would be a safer place without them.

Just out of curiosity, in your mind who does need guns? Hunters? Sexy James Bond type spies? Assassins? Gordon Freeman?

No one. If you need to kill someone standing across the room, you man up and go stab him in the chest, rather than kill him from where you're standing like a coward.

error

@drurowin said:

@mikeTheLiar said:
@drurowin said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@joe.edwards said:
h) Police don't need guns.

i) Nor do private citizens.
Not even the military needs guns. The world would be a safer place without them.

Just out of curiosity, in your mind who does need guns? Hunters? Sexy James Bond type spies? Assassins? Gordon Freeman?
No one. If you need to kill someone standing across the room, you man up and go stab him in the chest, rather than kill him from where you're standing like a coward.

Because your enemies will always play by the same rules you do.

morbiuswilters

@drurowin said:

@morbiuswilters said:
@joe.edwards said:
h) Police don't need guns.

i) Nor do private citizens.
Not even the military needs guns. The world would be a safer place without them.

Until some guy with a pointy stick decides to kick your ass. Then you'd be begging for the safety guns bring to your miserable life.

drurowin

@joe.edwards said:

@drurowin said:
@mikeTheLiar said:
@drurowin said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@joe.edwards said:
h) Police don't need guns.

i) Nor do private citizens.
Not even the military needs guns. The world would be a safer place without them.

Just out of curiosity, in your mind who does need guns? Hunters? Sexy James Bond type spies? Assassins? Gordon Freeman?
No one. If you need to kill someone standing across the room, you man up and go stab him in the chest, rather than kill him from where you're standing like a coward.

Because your enemies will always play by the same rules you do.

But if there were no more guns, where would he get guns? Granted, we'd (the civilized world) have to take over places like China and Korea (both halves) (probably with nuclear weapons to avoid the use of guns), but once that problem was solved, we would live in a peaceful safe utopia.

boomzilla

@drurowin said:

I really could care less if you went through my gmail, sent bomb threats from it or whatever.

How much less, though? I could care less, too, and for me, the answer to my question is, "A lot."

drurowin

@morbiuswilters said:

@drurowin said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@joe.edwards said:
h) Police don't need guns.

i) Nor do private citizens.
Not even the military needs guns. The world would be a safer place without them.

Until some guy with a pointy stick decides to kick your ass. Then you'd be begging for the safety guns bring to your miserable life.

I've got a board with a nail in.

locallunatic

@joe.edwards said:

Because your enemies will always play by the same rules you do.

Thanks for missing what he was implying so that I get something more interesting to watch people argue about than the boring "even the playing field to allow physically frail to make an honest attempt" vs. "if it was less easy it wouldn't happen" arguement that drurowin was aiming for.

boomzilla

@drurowin said:

But if there were no more guns, where would he get guns? Granted, we'd (the civilized world) have to take over places like China and Korea (both halves) (probably with nuclear weapons to avoid the use of guns), but once that problem was solved, we would live in a peaceful safe utopia.

Yeah, like Chicago, which has has had no guns for some time now!

drurowin

@boomzilla said:

@drurowin said:
But if there were no more guns, where would he get guns? Granted, we'd (the civilized world) have to take over places like China and Korea (both halves) (probably with nuclear weapons to avoid the use of guns), but once that problem was solved, we would live in a peaceful safe utopia.

Yeah, like Chicago, which has has had no guns for some time now!

That's the first step toward lowering the murder rate, especially when your city has a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_submachine_gun"]type of gun[/url] informally named after it.

morbiuswilters

@joe.edwards said:

@drurowin said:
@mikeTheLiar said:
@drurowin said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@joe.edwards said:
h) Police don't need guns.

i) Nor do private citizens.
Not even the military needs guns. The world would be a safer place without them.

Just out of curiosity, in your mind who does need guns? Hunters? Sexy James Bond type spies? Assassins? Gordon Freeman?
No one. If you need to kill someone standing across the room, you man up and go stab him in the chest, rather than kill him from where you're standing like a coward.

Because your enemies will always play by the same rules you do.

There's this retarded strain of thinking--I've noticed it mostly in Euro-weenies, but you see it in some Americunts--that if someone is trying to do you harm you need to give him a sporting chance to succeed. It's purely hypothetical, of course--the kind of opinion that can only be held by someone ignorantly ensconced in the cocoon that swift counter-violence (or mostly the threat thereof) provides. Now, if our furry friend was actually being cornered by a much larger man (i.e. any man) with a knife, he'd probably pray for some kind of way to protect himself, but it's easy to be an idiot online when nothing is on the line.

By the way, this is the same line of reasoning which causes Europeans to say "Hmm.. Palestinians are murdering innocent Israeli civilians, which is wrong, but why are the Israelis countering with tanks and bombs when the Palestinians don't have those things? It's disproportionate." As if you owed someone who was trying to murder you a proportionate response and a fighting chance to kill you when you strike back. And as if a proportionate response wouldn't just prolong the conflict. Once again: it's purely hypothetical. If it was their house being bombed, their family being killed and they were being sent to the front lines for a counter-offensive, they'd want every single advantage they had over the enemy.

locallunatic

@boomzilla said:

@drurowin said:
But if there were no more guns, where would he get guns? Granted, we'd (the civilized world) have to take over places like China and Korea (both halves) (probably with nuclear weapons to avoid the use of guns), but once that problem was solved, we would live in a peaceful safe utopia.
Yeah, like Chicago, which has has had no guns for some time now!

If you really want to join in on this line of argument that he was aiming for going with either examples of violence assuming no firearms and the outcomes from said violence or instead of that with his unstated assumption that violence would decrease if people had less sophisticated tools for conducting it are better routes.

drurowin

@morbiuswilters said:

@joe.edwards said:
@drurowin said:
@mikeTheLiar said:
@drurowin said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@joe.edwards said:
h) Police don't need guns.

i) Nor do private citizens.
Not even the military needs guns. The world would be a safer place without them.

Just out of curiosity, in your mind who does need guns? Hunters? Sexy James Bond type spies? Assassins? Gordon Freeman?
No one. If you need to kill someone standing across the room, you man up and go stab him in the chest, rather than kill him from where you're standing like a coward.

Because your enemies will always play by the same rules you do.

There's this retarded strain of thinking--I've noticed it mostly in Euro-weenies, but you see it in some Americunts--that if someone is trying to do you harm you need to give him a sporting chance to succeed. It's purely hypothetical, of course--the kind of opinion that can only be held by someone ignorantly ensconced in the cocoon that swift counter-violence (or mostly the threat thereof) provides. Now, if our furry friend was actually being cornered by a much larger man (i.e. any man) with a knife, he'd probably pray for some kind of way to protect himself, but it's easy to be an idiot online when nothing is on the line.

By the way, this is the same line of reasoning which causes Europeans to say "Hmm.. Palestinians are murdering innocent Israeli civilians, which is wrong, but why are the Israelis countering with tanks and bombs when the Palestinians don't have those things? It's disproportionate." As if you owed someone who was trying to murder you a proportionate response and a fighting chance to kill you when you strike back. And as if a proportionate response wouldn't just prolong the conflict. Once again: it's purely hypothetical. If it was their house being bombed, their family being killed and they were being sent to the front lines for a counter-offensive, they'd want every single advantage they had over the enemy.

I thought the Israelis were using [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDF_Caterpillar_D9"]killdozers[/url] against the Palestinians. I'm OK with that.

morbiuswilters

@drurowin said:

That's the first step toward lowering the murder rate, especially when your city has a type of gun informally named after it.

Then why did the murder rate sky-rocket in Chicago? Why is Chicago the worst US city? You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about, do you?

Thankfully, nobody gives a shit what you think. Chicago's gun laws have been overturned. The only way you're going to get rid of the 300 million guns held by American citizens is by trying to take them, and if you do that you're going to be full of holes.

drurowin

@morbiuswilters said:

@drurowin said:
That's the first step toward lowering the murder rate, especially when your city has a type of gun informally named after it.

Then why did the murder rate sky-rocket in Chicago? Why is Chicago the worst US city? You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about, do you?

Thankfully, nobody gives a shit what you think. Chicago's gun laws have been overturned. The only way you're going to get rid of the 300 million guns held by American citizens is by trying to take them, and if you do that you're going to be full of holes.

Most USAians would probably give up being able to buy guns in their neighborhood grocery stores, and give up the ones they had, in exchange for decent health care and their government not treating them like criminal suspects.

morbiuswilters

@drurowin said:

Most USAians would probably give up being able to buy guns in their neighborhood grocery stores, and give up the ones they had, in exchange for decent health care and their government not treating them like criminal suspects.

As I've already said a hundred times before, our homeless probably have better health care than your middle class. If you were less ignorant you would know that.

Also, you're just flat-out wrong: most Americans a strongly pro-gun, thank God.

That said, I actually wish the military could disarm. I wish humans never used violence against other humans. I could hope for a future where no government had guns, knives, bombs or nukes. I could hope private citizens and cops would never need guns for protection from other humans. But of course that's not reality, and disarming good people is just a sure way to let bad people run free.

And even if we could guarantee no humans would ever kill any other humans, private citizens would still have a need for guns for protection from animals. So my ideal scenario would still have private gun ownership, just not for defense against humans, and no government gun ownership.

boomzilla

@drurowin said:

Most USAians would probably give up being able to buy guns in their neighborhood grocery stores, and give up the ones they had, in exchange for decent health care and their government not treating them like criminal suspects.

We have some of the best health care. Our health financing system sucks, largely due to Democrats, but it's still better than most countries'. Of course, given the scope of modern laws and regulations, it's pretty much guaranteed that we're all criminals of some sort, so it's only fair that we're suspects.

drurowin

@morbiuswilters said:

@drurowin said:
Most USAians would probably give up being able to buy guns in their neighborhood grocery stores, and give up the ones they had, in exchange for decent health care and their government not treating them like criminal suspects.
Also, you're just flat-out wrong: most Americans a strongly pro-gun, thank God.

I can't find a peer-reviewed study, or even a properly conducted survey, showing that most USAians would rather have guns than safety. Remember Benjamin Franklin's old saying. "Those that would temporarily sacrifice liberty for permanent safety deserve both."

drurowin

@boomzilla said:

@drurowin said:
Most USAians would probably give up being able to buy guns in their neighborhood grocery stores, and give up the ones they had, in exchange for decent health care and their government not treating them like criminal suspects.

We have some of the best health care. Our health financing system sucks, largely due to Democrats, but it's still better than most countries'. Of course, given the scope of modern laws and regulations, it's pretty much guaranteed that we're all criminals of some sort, so it's only fair that we're suspects.

What good is health care, then, if your credit-card is declined as you check in to hospital, and are sent to the free clinic that doesn't deal with actual emergencies like a heart attack?

morbiuswilters

@drurowin said:

I can't find a peer-reviewed study, or even a properly conducted survey, showing that most USAians would rather have guns than safety.

But guns == safety!

@drurowin said:

Remember Benjamin Franklin's old saying. "Those that would temporarily sacrifice liberty for permanent safety deserve both."

I thought that was Thomas Jefferson. Or Winston Churchill.

morbiuswilters

@drurowin said:

What good is health care, then, if your credit-card is declined as you check in to hospital, and are sent to the free clinic that doesn't deal with actual emergencies like a heart attack?

Who would have thought drurowin was ignorant about this, too?

drurowin

@morbiuswilters said:

@drurowin said:
What good is health care, then, if your credit-card is declined as you check in to hospital, and are sent to the free clinic that doesn't deal with actual emergencies like a heart attack?

Who would have thought drurowin was ignorant about this, too?

I don't know how fucking hospitals work in the USA, I've never been!

blakeyrat

@drurowin said:

I don't know how fucking hospitals work in the USA, I've never been!

Pro-tip: hospitals with an ER (Emergency Room) can't turn away anybody by Federal Law. Anybody who has an actual medical problem requiring treatment, that is. For you pedantic dickweeds in the audience.

There are hospitals without ERs, but they're usually like super-exclusive cancer treatment hospitals or tiny neighborhood clinics. Very few and far-between.

drurowin

@blakeyrat said:

@drurowin said:
I don't know how fucking hospitals work in the USA, I've never been!

Pro-tip: hospitals with an ER (Emergency Room) can't turn away anybody by Federal Law. Anybody who has an actual medical problem requiring treatment, that is. For you pedantic dickweeds in the audience.

There are hospitals without ERs, but they're usually like super-exclusive cancer treatment hospitals or tiny neighborhood clinics. Very few and far-between.

Ah, and you just get a bill afterward for like eleventy billion dollars?

boomzilla

@drurowin said:

What good is health care, then, if your credit-card is declined as you check in to hospital, and are sent to the free clinic that doesn't deal with actual emergencies like a heart attack?

I have no idea what this random blathering is supposed to mean. Could you clarify? The thread suggests you meant to say something about US health care, but instead you typed that.

morbiuswilters

@drurowin said:

I don't know how fucking hospitals work in the USA, I've never been!

I thought you were mugged by a gun-wielding hospital in Atlanta?

drurowin

@morbiuswilters said:

@drurowin said:
I don't know how fucking hospitals work in the USA, I've never been!

I thought you were mugged by a gun-wielding hospital in Atlanta?

Never been to hospital in the US, not never been to the US.

boomzilla

@drurowin said:

I can't find a peer-reviewed study

That's because you have no peers.

drurowin

@boomzilla said:

@drurowin said:
What good is health care, then, if your credit-card is declined as you check in to hospital, and are sent to the free clinic that doesn't deal with actual emergencies like a heart attack?

I have no idea what this random blathering is supposed to mean. Could you clarify? The thread suggests you meant to say something about US health care, but instead you typed that.

Because of how people talk about your "health care crisis", I was under the assumption that your hospitals in America were cash-up-front affairs.

drurowin

@boomzilla said:

@drurowin said:
I can't find a peer-reviewed study

That's because you have no peers.

One of them resets my connections on IRC all the time though. :(

error

@drurowin said:

@morbiuswilters said:
@drurowin said:
What good is health care, then, if your credit-card is declined as you check in to hospital, and are sent to the free clinic that doesn't deal with actual emergencies like a heart attack?

Who would have thought drurowin was ignorant about this, too?
I don't know how fucking hospitals work in the USA, I've never been!

As I found out recently, it goes like this:

You check into the emergency room bleeding from a gash in your head.
You skip the line of 50 scowling people because your injury is potentially life-threatening.
They get your vitals, ask for insurance information and payment for admission (which you can defer; I paid up-front).
You go into a small room and a nurse checks you out while you wait for the doctor.
The doctor looks you over, recommends staples, and a CT scan.
They wheel you over to neuroradiologist.
You wait 30 minutes for a neuroradiologist.
You get scanned.
They wheel you back up and you wait for a doctor.
Doctor comes in, and staples your head shut, prescribes pain meds you won't bother filling.
You go home.
A month later you receive a bill from the neuroradiologist, a bill from the hospital, a bill from the doctor, a bill for the staple gun and staples and antibiotics, and a bill for getting the staples removed later.
Insurance covers half of the $3,800USD bills
FML

drurowin

@joe.edwards said:

@drurowin said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@drurowin said:
What good is health care, then, if your credit-card is declined as you check in to hospital, and are sent to the free clinic that doesn't deal with actual emergencies like a heart attack?

Who would have thought drurowin was ignorant about this, too?
I don't know how fucking hospitals work in the USA, I've never been!

As I found out recently, it goes like this:

You check into the emergency room bleeding from a gash in your head.

You skip the line of 50 scowling people because your injury is potentially life-threatening.

They get your vitals, ask for insurance information and payment for admission (which you can defer; I paid up-front).

You go into a small room and a nurse checks you out while you wait for the doctor.

The doctor looks you over, recommends staples, and a CT scan.

They wheel you over to neuroradiologist.

You wait 30 minutes for a neuroradiologist.

You get scanned.

They wheel you back up and you wait for a doctor.

Doctor comes in, and staples your head shut, prescribes pain meds you won't bother filling.

You go home.

A month later you receive a bill from the neuroradiologist, a bill from the hospital, a bill from the doctor, a bill for the staple gun and staples, and a bill for getting the staples removed later.

Insurance covers half of the $3,800USD bills

FML

That sucks. I hope your church or someone can help you out with the extra US$1,900 you're having to pay out of pocket.

locallunatic

@morbiuswilters said:

@drurowin said:
Remember Benjamin Franklin's old saying. "Those that would temporarily sacrifice liberty for permanent safety deserve both."
I thought that was Thomas Jefferson. Or Winston Churchill.

Really? I'm surprised that you gave him a pass on the mangling of it to fit what he is saying, I mean it's the easiest strawman ever on a silverplater.

dhromed

@morbiuswilters said:

@dhromed said:
@HardwareGeek said:
Congrats to Morbs on his 10,000^th post!

Dear lord! He's done it!
Welcome, fellow demigod! Please accept this golden purple dildo!

Once I climb you, there will be no more mountains left to climb.

You can take this silver spire when you pry it from my warm, clammy hands.

morbiuswilters

@drurowin said:

Ah, and you just get a bill afterward for like eleventy billion dollars?

Your insurance does. And if you don't have insurance, then you surely have one of the numerous government-provided health plans (which, sadly, are actually better than what normal people get), so the taxpayer gets a bill for eleventy billion dollars.

If you're unlucky enough to be one of the, like, half-dozen people who does not have health insurance and who does not qualify for Medicaid, then you will get billed, but nobody actually pays those things. Hospitals just write that shit off and pass the cost onto people with insurance and taxpayers (who are one-and-the-same, usually).

Oh, and health care is somewhat more expensive here, but we also have far, far better survival rates for things like cancer than you Britfags. I mean, your cancer survival rates are positively Third World. I don't even know how they could be so bad. I think you'd have a better chance of surviving cancer if you just did nothing than if you went to a British doctor.

locallunatic

@drurowin said:

I hope your church or someone can help you out with the extra US$1,900 you're having to pay out of pocket.

WTF? That is the kind of thing everyone but super stretching the paycheck every single time should have stashed to cover things like that (and if you are in that category you get billed differently anyway). The amount of babying you expect people to get is sickening.

error

@locallunatic said:

@drurowin said:
I hope your church or someone can help you out with the extra US$1,900 you're having to pay out of pocket.

WTF? That is the kind of thing everyone but super stretching the paycheck every single time should have stashed to cover things like that (and if you are in that category you get billed differently anyway). The amount of babying you expect people to get is sickening.

Yeah, I'm financially stable enough that it didn't break my bank; it wasn't a fun hit to take though. Also: I can't seem to find a church of atheism around.

boomzilla

@drurowin said:

Because of how people talk about your "health care crisis", I was under the assumption that your hospitals in America were cash-up-front affairs.

Yeah...there has never been a health care crisis. But the government has fucked health care financing to the point where no one can ignore all of the problems. Which isn't to say that there aren't other problems in health care (e.g., hospital and doctor cartels that limit supply, restrictions on organ donation that cause huge waiting lines), but we don't (yet) have problems like incentives for the Liverpool Care Pathway. The Death Panels should be fixing that omission shortly.