07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 159160161162163 ...
tools
  1. JW4VZW's Avatar
    So now you get to decide what others can be offended by????
    That's typical here, Live2ride883. But i agree, who is she to say what I can and can't be offended by.
    12-14-2013 09:52 AM
  2. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    If you are the obscenely wealthy or the child of obscenely wealthy parents, you can probably kill them all and get off with an affluencia defense. It worked for one teen, so...
    12-14-2013 10:04 AM
  3. palandri's Avatar
    So the folks from outside the U.S. understand the term redneck better, it can be used in a derogatory or complimentary manner. It all depends on what adjective you attached to it. Some people call themselves a redneck with pride. It's no more offensive than calling a farmer a sod buster, which can be used in a derogatory or complimentary manner, depending on what adjective you attach to it.

    There's a famous southern comedian in the states named Jeff Foxworthy who made millions telling redneck jokes and one liners. He had albums that went platinum and had his own TV show for a while. His one liners would be like, "If your 10 year old daughter can drink a six pack of beer faster than you at a family barbeque, you might be a redneck".

    So for someone to imply that the term redneck in the U.S. is just as bad as using the "N" word, it's far fetched at best.
    12-14-2013 10:11 AM
  4. jaj324's Avatar
    Are there other rights that should be added to the Constitution? For example, some people believe we should have the right to privacy. Are there other rights we should add?
    Did you seriously start a conversation about the Constitution by saying that "some people believe we should have the right to privacy"?????

    That right is already in the Constitution. It's called the 4th Amendment .
    12-14-2013 10:16 AM
  5. NoYankees44's Avatar
    So the folks from outside the U.S. understand the term redneck better, it can be used in a derogatory or complimentary manner. It all depends on what adjective you attached to it. Some people call themselves a redneck with pride. It's no more offensive than calling a farmer a sod buster, which can be used in a derogatory or complimentary manner, depending on what adjective you attach to it.

    There's a famous southern comedian in the states named Jeff Foxworthy who made millions telling redneck jokes and one liners. He had albums that went platinum and had his own TV show for a while. His one liners would be like, "If your 10 year old daughter can drink a six pack of beer faster than you at a family barbeque, you might be a redneck".

    So for someone to imply that the term redneck in the U.S. is just as bad as using the "N" word, it's far fetched at best.
    And we have an entire genre of music and entertainers that use the "N" in every other sentence.

    Point is, words are given a connotation by the people that are "offended" or by the intent of the people that use them. It is a choice or an endocrine reaction.

    Words are words. They do not carry any connotation other then what we give them and the intent behind the person saying them. To have a black list of words is quite frankly stupid. Black list the hatred behind them.
    12-14-2013 10:38 AM
  6. Scott7217's Avatar
    Here in America, we have a Second Amendment which guarantees our ability to possess firearms.
    You'll be happy to know that the US Supreme Court ruled TWICE in favor of the people's right to bear arms, thus making it harder to ban them. I believe there are several more cases working their way through the system. The people are challenging the government at every turn... and it looks like they're winning.
    qxr likes this.
    12-14-2013 11:27 AM
  7. Scott7217's Avatar
    Did you seriously start a conversation about the Constitution by saying that "some people believe we should have the right to privacy"?????

    That right is already in the Constitution. It's called the 4th Amendment .
    Yes, I did, but the right to privacy was only an example. I'm actually looking for any rights that aren't in the Constitution that should be added. I am open to the possibility that there are no more rights that can be added. Can you think of any new rights to add?
    12-14-2013 11:35 AM
  8. JW4VZW's Avatar
    You'll be happy to know that the US Supreme Court ruled TWICE in favor of the people's right to bear arms, thus making it harder to ban them. I believe there are several more cases working their way through the system. The people are challenging the government at every turn... and it looks like they're winning.
    That is good news!
    Posted on my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 on Verizon Wireless, America's largest 4G LTE Network. Please excuse any errors.
    qxr likes this.
    12-14-2013 01:36 PM
  9. JW4VZW's Avatar
    So for someone to imply that the term redneck in the U.S. is just as bad as using the "N" word, it's far fetched at best.
    Except it is just as bad. The term "redneck" is an ethnical slur for someone from the Appalachian Region. Besides, rappers and everyone else continuously use the "n word" in their raps.
    Posted on my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 on Verizon Wireless, America's largest 4G LTE Network. Please excuse any errors.
    12-14-2013 01:39 PM
  10. JW4VZW's Avatar
    N'oublions jamais l'Australie means never forget Australia. Its inscribed on all the classroom whiteboards in Villers-Bretonneux, France. As during the world war their village was taken over by German forces. During the night a heavy out armed Australian (and most likely also new Zealand) brigade assaulted the village in hope to reclaim the French town. They were successful but unfortunately destroyed most of the village and schools in the process. Out of guilt the soldiers fundraised and returned to the village after the war and began rebuilding the village as a way for them to repay the damages they caused in the recapture of the town.
    That story sounds familiar actually. It was pretty good of them to rebuild the village.
    Redneck is almost interchangeable for bogan. Basically someone generally from a more blue collar background, who is extremely uneducated in their views and tends to hold a prejudice view. It doesn't involve religion.
    Here in the United States, “redneck” is an ethnical slur for someone who comes from the Appalachian Region. It just so happens that I am from a part of Southern Virginia that is in that region. Some blacks use “redneck” to describe a white person, also as an ethnical slur. This is usually done when calling said white person a racist. I didn’t know that there was a difference between that word here and in Australia. My apologies.
    - Android Central App. N'oublions jamais l'Australie, Villers-Bretonneux. Prepare for January 26.
    I see what you’re talking about now. What is the significance of January 26?
    12-14-2013 01:51 PM
  11. KiwiGrrl's Avatar
    I'm not delicate at all. Perhaps you should read what I wrote. If you can read, that is!
    Ooooh, so what's the implication here? I'm unintelligent because I don't agree with you? Because I'm a Kiwi and I'm telling you you're wrong? Whatever. Since I can read and, in fact, did read exactly what you said, lets recap, shall we?

    Kiwis
    Is a racial slur for someone from New Zealand. How is it that you, Fairclough, is allowed to “say” racial slurs in these forums and not get banned? You have said “rednecks” before, and now you say “kiwis.”
    So, you stated emphatically that the term KIWIS was a racial slur. And when it was pointed out to you that that wasn't the case, you said ...

    Well I was offended by it ...
    Continuing in that vein, when it was said that you shouldn't be offended by something that New Zealanders call themselves and which, in fact, is not a slur, you responded ...

    Well I am. I have a cousin who married a girl from there, so therefore I do have a reason to be offended..
    So your cousin married a Kiwi girl and that makes you an expert on all things Kiwi? Awesome! You ever meet her? Talk to her? Did she tell you that she's offended by being called a Kiwi? I seriously, seriously doubt it ... because it's not offensive and it's not a slur ...

    And then there's this, which isn't part of how you're wrong but I'll address it anyway...

    That's typical here, Live2ride883. But i agree, who is she to say what I can and can't be offended by.
    Live2Ride883's comment wasn't aimed at me, though I did respond. Why? Because I was born and raised in New Zealand, just like my parents, grandparents and great grandparents before me. The term is more than my online handle, my road name ... it's part of my cultural identity and I, like millions of other New Zealanders embrace it. So there's my "right". I'm part of that nation, part of that long, proud, diverse history and heritage. If I'm not offended by it, then what right do you have to be? Frankly, the only thing I find offensive here is that you've tried to twist the identity of myself and my country into something dirty and insulting and, when faced with the truth, you've persisted in your twisting.

    To further cement my "right", here's where you justified your right to label the term "redneck" as an "ethnical" slur ...

    Here in the United States, “redneck” is an ethnical slur for someone who comes from the Appalachian Region. It just so happens that I am from a part of Southern Virginia that is in that region. Some blacks use “redneck” to describe a white person, also as an ethnical slur. This is usually done when calling said white person a racist.
    Your implication here is that since you're from that region, you get to decide what is and isn't considered offensive in reference to that region. So, by your own logic, I, as a Kiwi, get to decide what is and isn't considered offensive when it comes to my people and my country. And being called a Kiwi is most certainly not offensive

    But, whatever. Go ahead and continue to be offended by something that only you have an issue with. I can only guess at what inane logic led you to that conclusion, but I'll continue to blame it on your delicate sensibilities. Believe me, that's much better than the alternate.

    At least you wouldn't have to worry about being run out of New Zealand at gun point. Maybe ...
    12-14-2013 02:02 PM
  12. anon5664829's Avatar
    Hey, if your country wants to ban guns, that is all good and everything. Here in America, we have a Second Amendment which guarantees our ability to possess firearms.

    Didnt Australia deport illegals to Papa New Guinea?


    Is a racial slur for someone from New Zealand. How is it that you, Fairclough, is allowed to say racial slurs in these forums and not get banned? You have said rednecks before, and now you say kiwis. Not really an accusation, more of a personal curiousity.
    because kiwi is not a freaking racial slur. It is used to call someone from New Zealand. Know how I know? Because I live in New Zealand and we call each other kiwis there is no way we would get offended by it.

    Posted via Android Central App
    12-14-2013 02:15 PM
  13. anon5664829's Avatar
    Ooooh, so what's the implication here? I'm unintelligent because I don't agree with you? Because I'm a Kiwi and I'm telling you you're wrong? Whatever. Since I can read and, in fact, did read exactly what you said, lets recap, shall we?



    So, you stated emphatically that the term KIWIS was a racial slur. And when it was pointed out to you that that wasn't the case, you said ...



    Continuing in that vein, when it was said that you shouldn't be offended by something that New Zealanders call themselves and which, in fact, is not a slur, you responded ...



    So your cousin married a Kiwi girl and that makes you an expert on all things Kiwi? Awesome! You ever meet her? Talk to her? Did she tell you that she's offended by being called a Kiwi? I seriously, seriously doubt it ... because it's not offensive and it's not a slur ...

    And then there's this, which isn't part of how you're wrong but I'll address it anyway...



    Live2Ride883's comment wasn't aimed at me, though I did respond. Why? Because I was born and raised in New Zealand, just like my parents, grandparents and great grandparents before me. The term is more than my online handle, my road name ... it's part of my cultural identity and I, like millions of other New Zealanders embrace it. So there's my "right". I'm part of that nation, part of that long, proud, diverse history and heritage. If I'm not offended by it, then what right do you have to be? Frankly, the only thing I find offensive here is that you've tried to twist the identity of myself and my country into something dirty and insulting and, when faced with the truth, you've persisted in your twisting.

    To further cement my "right", here's where you justified your right to label the term "redneck" as an "ethnical" slur ...



    Your implication here is that since you're from that region, you get to decide what is and isn't considered offensive in reference to that region. So, by your own logic, I, as a Kiwi, get to decide what is and isn't considered offensive when it comes to my people and my country. And being called a Kiwi is most certainly not offensive

    But, whatever. Go ahead and continue to be offended by something that only you have an issue with. I can only guess at what inane logic led you to that conclusion, but I'll continue to blame it on your delicate sensibilities. Believe me, that's much better than the alternate.

    At least you wouldn't have to worry about being run out of New Zealand at gun point. Maybe ...
    I love that little blow at the end
    I'm a proud kiwi and approve this message

    Posted via Android Central App
    12-14-2013 02:44 PM
  14. KiwiGrrl's Avatar
    I love that little blow at the end
    I'm a proud kiwi and approve this message

    Posted via Android Central App
    It is a thread about guns. Had to keep it slightly on track
    12-14-2013 02:49 PM
  15. Aquila's Avatar
    We are going to take a little break in this thread. It will most likely reopen in the future.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    palandri likes this.
    12-14-2013 03:35 PM
  16. Aquila's Avatar
    It is imperative to the survival of this thread that we work together to address each other much more respectfully, without calling people names, personally attacking members and/or generally behaving in a belligerent manner. If anyone has concerns about the forum rules, a link can be found in my signature. I seriously doubt that I'll be sending any more PM's to request calmness in this thread. Thread has been cleaned.
    12-14-2013 04:16 PM
  17. JohnnytheK's Avatar
    One fact that I think puts the issue in stark release. In America every year 800 k - 1.5 M crimes/lives are saved by the display of an weapon, not the shooting of it but the display of it.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
    Scott7217 likes this.
    12-15-2013 03:17 AM
  18. Fairclough's Avatar
    Fact check ^ anyone

    - Android Central App. N'oublions jamais l'Australie, Villers-Bretonneux. Prepare for January 26.
    12-15-2013 04:11 AM
  19. Aquila's Avatar
    Fact check ^ anyone

    - Android Central App. N'oublions jamais l'Australie, Villers-Bretonneux. Prepare for January 26.
    Number is a 20 year old extrapolated figure from a survey of gun owners. There is an issue in which population is correct to scale to, but the 1-2% of the survey, with no transformation for statistical normalcy and no evidence to support the personal recollection of the incredibly tiny sample size, applied to today's population of legal gun owners would amount to .8mm to 1.6mm across 80 million owners.

    The methodologies are generous and interpretation of the questions is very loose. Even so, if its even a quarter of the low end, thats still an average of around 550 crimes prevented per day.

    So while the numbers are scientifically questionable, the point of it being "a lot" is still valid. It's still many times (probably at least 10-20x) the number of deaths related to firearms, would have to research more to compare to injuries, etc.

    They are emphatically used more for defensive purposes than to actually kill people.

    Assuming everyone is equal (bad assumption because people making certain decisions are more likely than others) the odds of dying to a firearm in a given year for an american is about 30,000:1.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    UJ95x and Scott7217 like this.
    12-15-2013 05:37 AM
  20. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    Did you seriously start a conversation about the Constitution by saying that "some people believe we should have the right to privacy"?????

    That right is already in the Constitution. It's called the 4th Amendment .
    No, that's not what the Fourth does. It seeks outlaw unreasonable search and seizure, nothing more.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    Posted via Android Central App
    Scott7217 likes this.
    12-15-2013 02:18 PM
  21. Scott7217's Avatar
    One fact that I think puts the issue in stark release. In America every year 800 k - 1.5 M crimes/lives are saved by the display of an weapon, not the shooting of it but the display of it.
    What if I carried a realistic replica of an actual firearm? Would I get the same benefits if I openly displayed it? If a replica is not good enough, could I carry an actual firearm that is loaded with blank cartridges? I could shoot it up at the sky as a warning shot to ward off potential attackers.
    12-15-2013 10:42 PM
  22. Aquila's Avatar
    What if I carried a realistic replica of an actual firearm? Would I get the same benefits if I openly displayed it? If a replica is not good enough, could I carry an actual firearm that is loaded with blank cartridges? I could shoot it up at the sky as a warning shot to ward off potential attackers.
    Not sure bluffing is a good call when betting with your life. Warning shots are almost always a bad idea. Where is that round going to land? 95% of people should aim for dead centermass 100% of the time.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    Scott7217 and UJ95x like this.
    12-15-2013 10:47 PM
  23. Scott7217's Avatar
    Not sure bluffing is a good call when betting with your life. Warning shots are almost always a bad idea. Where is that round going to land? 95% of people should aim for dead centermass 100% of the time.
    I am exploring the idea that the mere presentation of a weapon can save lives, as discussed in the post by JohnnytheK. The premise is that you don't need to shoot your weapon to protect yourself. Presumably, criminals will not attack a person who appears to be armed.

    My thinking is that if criminals will not bother a person who is openly carrying a pistol (for example), would criminals also avoid a person who is openly carrying a replica? You obviously wouldn't tell the criminals that the pistol is fake. Of course, a replica is not as good as the real thing if criminals decide to attack anyway.

    As for the idea of warning shots, I was thinking of blank cartridges, like the ones used in the movies. There are no actual bullets, so there's nothing that will fall out of the sky. However, the cartridges will emit a visible flash and make a loud gunshot noise. I propose this idea to further the illusion that a person is armed.

    Again, having an actual pistol would be superior to a replica. However, is a replica better than nothing at all?
    UJ95x likes this.
    12-15-2013 11:31 PM
  24. Aquila's Avatar
    I am exploring the idea that the mere presentation of a weapon can save lives, as discussed in the post by JohnnytheK. The premise is that you don't need to shoot your weapon to protect yourself. Presumably, criminals will not attack a person who appears to be armed.

    My thinking is that if criminals will not bother a person who is openly carrying a pistol (for example), would criminals also avoid a person who is openly carrying a replica? You obviously wouldn't tell the criminals that the pistol is fake. Of course, a replica is not as good as the real thing if criminals decide to attack anyway.

    As for the idea of warning shots, I was thinking of blank cartridges, like the ones used in the movies. There are no actual bullets, so there's nothing that will fall out of the sky. However, the cartridges will emit a visible flash and make a loud gunshot noise. I propose this idea to further the illusion that a person is armed.

    Again, having an actual pistol would be superior to a replica. However, is a replica better than nothing at all?
    I've taught self defense and martial arts for about 18 years and trained for about 30. From that perspective, this screams, "bad idea"... But I'll admit I have never seen data regarding people attempting this bluff.

    Two points... 1 be careful with blanks, they can still injure and kill. Treat it no different then hollow points. 2 this is close to the opposite of effective defense philosophy. I would not teach this because of the probability of escalation if the bluff is called.

    So all that said, free country, good luck.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    12-16-2013 03:13 AM
  25. Scott7217's Avatar
    I've taught self defense and martial arts for about 18 years and trained for about 30. From that perspective, this screams, "bad idea"... But I'll admit I have never seen data regarding people attempting this bluff.

    Two points... 1 be careful with blanks, they can still injure and kill. Treat it no different then hollow points. 2 this is close to the opposite of effective defense philosophy. I would not teach this because of the probability of escalation if the bluff is called.
    Oh, blanks are definitely dangerous. They often contain more powder than regular rounds. This allows them to create a bigger flash than normal to give a more dramatic appearance on film. Still, the heat, noise, and gas pressure from firing a blank is still dangerous by itself at close range.

    I wouldn't routinely recommend bluffing as a means of defense. However, it does present some interesting scenarios. For example, let's compare two individuals. Both are openly carrying a pistol on a hip holster. Anyone can plainly see that they are carrying a weapon. However, only one individual is carrying an actual pistol. The other individual is carrying a replica pistol. Would both individuals have the same chance of being attacked? Remember, the claim is that merely showing a weapon without shooting it can save lives.

    I suspect most criminals would assume that both individuals are armed and just move on. They would rather find someone who is unarmed.
    12-16-2013 06:04 AM
4,617 ... 159160161162163 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD