subreddit
stringclasses 11
values | text
stringlengths 246
28.5k
|
|---|---|
worldnews
|
> random cards per pack is just a physical loot box.
Magic: the Gathering is my main hobby, and I think this misrepresents why we buy booster packs. Most booster packs are used to compete in "limited" events like draft and sealed, where you have to figure out how to build a deck with the random cards you open. If we didn't have random boosters, we wouldn't be able to play Magic this way. (And really, limited is the best way to play Magic. Fight me.)
Limited players tend to sell or trade the valuable cards they pick up from these events. Most of the players who play constructed formats - playing with their own cards - purchase those cards on the secondary market rather than opening booster packs.
|
worldnews
|
I can't speak for other TCGs, but in Magic most booster packs are bought for play in limited formats where the players are supposed use the random cards they open. It's the most popular way to play Magic everywhere I've lived. That the cards have secondary market value just helps you recoup some of the cost you incur playing limited. Since I play with my cards right away, I get my $4 of value out of a booster pack no matter whether I opened something valuable or not.
|
worldnews
|
In Magic, there are two sets of rules. The first set, covered by the Comprehensive Rules, governs how cards are played in a literal game of Magic. These are generally the same no matter how you play. The second set, called a "format", governs the rules regarding deck construction. Which format you play is fundamentally important to how you're playing the game, and the choices you make in deck construction are just as important as the choices you make within a particular "game."
The most-played set of deck-construction rules is called Booster Draft. A group of competitors (usually eight players) each starts with three booster packs. They open the first pack, select a single card, and pass the rest of the pack to the next player. Then they pick up the pack they were passed and select another card. This goes on until all three booster packs are used up. Then the players build a deck from the draft pool. Fundamentally, the format tests your ability to craft a deck on the fly, and your intuition regarding what strategies your fellow players are selecting. (There are other ways to draft, with player-created and -randomized draft sets. These play quite differently from opening boosters for a draft.)
To play with your own cards - called "Constructed" - is a fundamentally different experience. That is all about crafting a well-tuned deck to handle the "metagame" of other expected decks in the format. It's also a fun way to play, but it's a totally different experience from drafting where you don't know what you'll have to work with.
The vast majority of Magic cards are designed to only see play in limited formats like Booster Draft, and Booster Draft is generally the most-played sanctioned format. If a regulation were to kill booster packs, it would extension be killing most of Magic.
|
worldnews
|
>The way it is today, if you want to play anything else than draft/sealed or the durdliest of kitchen table you have to pay for singles with money. It's an integral part of the system.
Well yeah. That's because of the demand for the individual cards to build competitive decks (the secondary market). Playing Limited or regular kitchen table Magic is essentially removing the secondary market from the equation since you just play with what you have. If you want to be more *competitive* then you'll have to spend more. You've not exactly refuted my point.
|
worldnews
|
You can't try and discredit an analogy by using examples that aren't similar to one another. That doesn't make sense.
>The fact, that a secondary market with relatively stable prices exists, makes it much more akin to gambling
It really doesn't because Wizards doesn't profit from the secondary market. It's the sites and stores that make money from singles, and the biggest sites like Channel Fireball and SCG basically set the prices themselves. Again, you're paying for a product, not the chance to win more.
>You can argue that every card is valuable but at this moment I could buy 4000 random cards for under 20€
Sure, because that's the value of those bulk cards. Used scratchcards have no value. If you offered someone that money for their used scratchcards they'd both jump at the chance and think you're nuts *because* they're worthless.
|
worldnews
|
You can get pretty close to the booster draft experience with not too many cards. I'll pick the 2019 core set as an example. It has 280 cards, of which 111 are common, 80 are uncommon and 69 are rare/mythic. There are also 10 common lands, 2 uncommon lands and 1 rare land [note that these non-basic lands can take the land slot in a booster.]
Take 4 copies each common, 2 copies of each uncommon, and 1 copy of each rare/mythic and put these all in seperate piles. Also take an additional 4 copies of each common lands, 2 copies of each uncommon land and a single copy of the rare land and put these all to a single land pile. This is 718 cards in total, split into a common pile of 444 cards, an uncommon pile of 160 cards, a rare/mythic pile of 69 cards, and a land pile of 45 cards.
How do you draft with these cards? Well, first, add 60 basic lands to the land pile (12 of each colour). Shuffle all 4 piles. Now to make a booster, pick 10 cards from the common pile, 3 from the uncommon pile, 1 from the rare/mythic pile and 1 from the land pile. You have enough cards to make up to 44 boosters, which should be enough for most games.
You'd usually give 3 boosters to each player, so with 44 boosters, you can have up to 14 players. However, I would recommend keeping the maximum playerbase at 8, so that most of the cards don't get used so as to keep the varience high enough. With 8 players each having 3 boosters, there are 204 unused commons still in the pile, 88 unused rares still in the pile, 45 rare/mythics and 81 unused lands, so you pretty much have no idea what you're going to get, even after seeing a lot of the cards. And the distribution of cards is the same as in the packs. So the experience is going to extremely close to just a normal draft.
So you can pretty much play an 8 player booster draft with just 718 cards.
|
worldnews
|
I have played with repacks, and they're fun, but there's a significant problem with them: time investment. I got into Magic because I was willing to pay a lot of money for something that I didn't need to invest much time into. (Seriously, my reasoning was that I had more money than time.) You're taking an expensive hobby which requires virtually no start-up effort, and turning it into a cheap hobby that requires a lot of effort to set up. That's a fundamentally different experience, and I'm not interested unless I'm paying someone else to build my booster packs, which is what we already have.
Given that there are hordes of players who would rather draft boosters every week than play with repacks, I suspect that there are a lot more players who see things my way than your way.
|
worldnews
|
Limited format(drafting) plays with 40 card decks. When drafting 3 packs, you will end up with 45 cards at the end of the draft that you need to make a 40 card deck from. About 17 cards in your deck will be basic lands that you do not need to draft so you actually only need to pick about 23 cards from the pool of 45 that you drafted. You play in the tournament with the cards you drafted and you go home with the cards you drafted. This means you need to develop a strategy for winning while drafting, and the monetary of a card does not necessarily dictate its strategic value in that context.
|
worldnews
|
Why are you defending them? You’re clearly not one of those that pay just for thrills and instead think it’s acceptable to buy core cosmetics in crates. It’s wrong and it’s unjustifiable and there’s a reason it’s becoming illegal.
It’s gambling for things that should be achievements and earned. Not 1% chance at being bought.
You can say it’s an opinion but that’s going to last right up until it’s illegal.
|
worldnews
|
First off I am explaining why some people are ok with loot boxes that only contain cosmetics. I actually would be perfectly fine if cosmetics did not even exist in games. I have never purchased any loot boxes and tell others only do so if you are supporting the developer not because you want some digital good.
I don't think it's great that is the model companies choose to find their games, and hopefully the players will generate enough revenue when companies are forced into direct purchasing. For me i see this as an evil required to fund games that people would not pay a subscription for or purchase dlc. The issue is hiding request content behind paywalls factures the player base. Players are fickle and bitch about micro transactions yet are fine with loot boxes until the ea fiasco.
Even when such loot boxes become restricted for games it can still be a valid opinion that people can have. Based on your logic, weed should never be legalized and nobody can have the opinion that it should be legal. People should not be drinking alcohol because at one point it was illegal and nobody should have discussed and made change to legalize it. Smoking is legal and nobody should have an opinion that it's horrible that a product can be sold with ads on tv that effectively tell people how to quit because it's so dearly and addictive.
Opinions help drive discussions.
Now a fact, Technically loot boxes are not gambling due to lack of consideration for both parties for the outcome of the gamble. Look up the legal definition.
|
worldnews
|
No one is going to jail for this, and it is infuriating. It just continues the narrative that this kind of thing is "okay" for banks to do because there are no real consequences.
I'm glad I changed from Danske Bank ten or twelve years ago, but the bank I switched to is probably no better.
*Edit: Holy shit, this blew up. I shitpost every day and I can't remember the updoots and @'s. Please vote against the parties that protect these banks instead, regardless of where you live.*
|
worldnews
|
In the US,
-- For the Rich ---
Steal billions = Nothing
Commit egregious insider trading = Virtually no chance of conviction, 3-9 months probation sentence
Rape = Very low odds of conviction averaged out, 1-2 years avg sentence
Child molestation/Rape = Slightly higher rate of conviction, 2-4 years avg sentence
-- For the Poor ---
Commit $50k of interstate bank fraud = Very high odds of conviction, 2-3 years sentence
Physical assault (bar fight) with broken arm = Very high odds of conviction, 2 years sentence
Caught smoking joint in the wrong place in the US = Guranteed odds of conviction, 1-8 years sentence
Moral of the story, the US doesn't have a justice system, it has a legal system. And that system is engineered soley to attack the crimes of the poor and ignore the crimes of the rich. Rich people can do great hurt and damage to other people, society and the world and get the same length of sentence as a poor person caught with weed at an airport.
Edit: Noted at the top this isn't about Denmark
|
worldnews
|
Scandals like this make me tired. You hear about companies pulling bullshit, scamming millions, stealing money, and absolutely nothing is done. A bank could completely fuck you over just because you opened a checking account, apparently.
Wells Fargo used to constantly overdraft my money. I’d change my debit cards, I’d change passwords, all that. Then the news came out that employees were stealing from customers. I doubt I was a victim at all, but we’re required to hand over basically everything for “safe keeping” with zero coverage.
|
worldnews
|
I don't get those overdraft fees at all. Everything I've heard about it makes it sound awful and too expensive.
In my country it's treated as a small (temporary) loan. If you have -100 euro for a day you pay a very small amount of interest (at my bank it's 9% on a year basis) that will probably be only a few cents per day.
If you don't have it on or you've reached the limit transactions will just get declined.
|
worldnews
|
I think that’s exactly how it should be. Not sure about other places, but banks in the US make it crazy hard on the poorer people to do anything. Overdraft by .50? Enjoy that $20 overdraft fee that isn’t refundable. I got a fee because I went $5 below $100 on an account that makes it mandatory to have at least a hundred. Which confuses me. That’s my money, why can’t I use it?
|
worldnews
|
The problem is they have deniability - "Oh shoot, that money people were depositing and giving us to invest was *dirty* money? Oh wow, yikes we didn't know, but I'll still step down since it happened under my watch" is the narrative they go with.
And its really *really* hard to prove they knew about it and let it happen, or actively engaged and encouraged it. The article itself even says there is no proof the CEO or other officials did anything illegal or went outside their legal obligations to the bank or finance laws.
I agree though that white collar crime should be better fought and have harsher punishments applied (didn't China just *execute* a bunch of executives at a company that was doing shady shit? Could you even imagine if that was possible for bankers in the western world? This shit would stop *immediately*.).
|
worldnews
|
Only because nobody understands the situation at the top of the pyramid. What authority or playbook is there that determines how big banks ought to run? Who actually has expertise and understanding for how it should work? It's very difficult to make laws that target niche situations that are only directly applicable to the 0.01% of the population because what they do is so rare that it defies generalization when you get down to it. Unless we understand the specific circumstance of money laundering in this case, and the loopholes or methods that were used to do it, we will have a hard time making any reasonable laws against it. Furthermore, countries have to work together to prevent international money laundering. Like you think the us is corrupt, but if the us decided to start being extra harsh on the super rich, there's no reason why billionaires can't fly a private jet to any other continent with countries that are willing to accept a level of corruption for a small influx of wealth from a billionaire. This is, I think, greater than the U.S.
Prevention of large scale corruption is probably greater than a single country because of the leverage rich people have in being able to manage their finances on an international level. Even if Panama papers exposed the levels of corruption, we actually have to work together for anything to be done about it. Try telling Saudi Arabia, as the worst example, that they need to be less greedy.
But you think the locus of corruption is the fucking states? Give me a break. At least many there have the fucking chance to get rich and aren't starving to death like a Venezuelan. My point is, I hate seeing empty complaints. They make me lose hope and feel low effort.
Also what does rape and child molestation have to do with a rich/poor divide? Clearly the reason these crimes go underpunished is due to the intensely personal nature of the crime. Violating someone sexually is much harder to pinpoint and nail down than stealing a physical object from them. If we wanted to, we could prosecute such crimes with greater severity and frequency but then we would be sitting around making your same arguments that the corrupt and rich legal system wrongfully convicts the poor of heinous crimes without enough proof.
Anyways, your very point, that rich people can do a lot of damage and hurt is a basic consequence of the leverage that comes with having so much. In that kind of situation, you either have to be saint-like, like Bill Gates, or else if you continue to make risks and investments you are nearly guaranteed to fuck people over and overturn the lives of people as easily as turning over a chessboard even if you have good intentions. Obviously when you have a top level position, every action, ever word you say to the press or on social media can cause a national scandal if you aren't careful. These people live behind veils because of the barbarity of poor people who do not react reasonably or with an understanding of what a common person would do in the position of the super rich.
Nothing is done solely for X or Y. Maybe you exist solely to complain though?
|
worldnews
|
Yeah, at least banks have regulations and compliance officers and auditors and shit. Sure it fails sometimes and stuff like this happens. Stil most banks invest a ton of resources to avoid money laundering or wouldn't want to be caught near anything outright illegal.
On the other hand you have these new untraceable made up currencies that have non of all of that. That won't attract any shady types at all... /s
|
worldnews
|
I think a big part of the disparity is for-profit legal representation. Poor people get public defenders or a cheap lawyer, both of which are stretched thin for time on the case. Rich people can afford to pay hundreds of thousands or millions on entire teams of lawyers to find every loophole and technicality to tie up the case to the point where the prosecution can't keep up with the wall of bullshit.
|
worldnews
|
I feel like that’s all very simplistic for what the real systemic issues that need to be addressed.
• Liberalization of drug laws
• Stronger sentencing guidelines for child-related crimes
You mention interstate bank fraud, which I’m not sure exactly what that is. But the main difference I notice is that low-income demographics are more likely to commit violent crimes than the equivalent middle-income or wealthy criminal. Meaning, lower-income criminals have less access to the tools necessary to commit insider trading or money laundering. And are, statistically-speaking, more apt to rob someone one-on-one with a weapon. As it stands now, sentencing/punishment is more egregious for violent crimes.
Now a more interesting question arises, which is how we should react to that. Is it inherently worse to rob someone with a gun than a computer? Perhaps. Life and death are the binary options to being robbed at gunpoint, despite the take for the robber being the same. Though perhaps not as we must ask of our system: are we policing/judging actions or consequences?
|
worldnews
|
The offending bank needs only pay a paltry fine relative to the size of their revenue and no one goes to jail. Take HSBC for example - below are some articles of the money-laundering scandal by HSBC bank:
* [Failure after failure at HSBC led to the London-based bank being used as a conduit for "drug kingpins and rogue nations", a 300-page report compiled for a US Senate committee has found.](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-18880269)
* [HSBC Helped Terrorists, Iran, Mexican Drug Cartels Launder Money, Senate Report Says](https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/07/16/hsbc-helped-terrorists-iran-mexican-drug-cartels-launder-money-senate-report-says/#59f2975d5712)
* [HSBC to pay $1.9 billion U.S. fine in money-laundering case](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-to-pay-1-9-billion-u-s-fine-in-money-laundering-case-idUSBRE8BA05M20121211)
* [HSBC escaped US money-laundering charges after Osborne's intervention: UK chancellor and a British banking regulator warned of ‘global financial disaster’ if bank were prosecuted, House report says](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/11/hsbc-us-money-laundering-george-osborne-report)
* [HSBC hopes to leave era of scandals behind: The bank has been held back by big fines and hasty acquisitions but believes it is in a position to grow again](https://www.ft.com/content/303a4296-12a2-11e8-940e-08320fc2a277)
* And finally a documentary re-examines [HSBC’s $881 million money-laundering scandal](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/netflix-documentary-re-examines-hsbcs-881-million-money-laundering-scandal-2018-02-21)
Edit: formatting
|
worldnews
|
Just wanted to clarify it a bit; while she did sell off $200K of company stock, it was the additional side sale of her own personal shares of a biotech company just to avoid a loss of around $46,000 (which at the time of her billion dollar net worth, was probably a loss of something along the lines of like $50 for a middle class family) which did her in. She acted on a tip from a crooked broker and *that’s* what the SEC got her on. Her fines alone quadrupled the personal loss she was trying to avoid and that’s where the $300K tag comes in.
And you’re right. It was a really tough crime to prove at the time. But I think the trade commission really wanted to make an example out of someone big at the time and they really pushed for it. In any case she did 5 months at a “cushy” Club Fed pen, was released and she’s probably an even bigger celebrity now. Ironically enough, she eventually lost her billionaire status years later because her company was just simply failing and they were hemorrhaging money.
|
worldnews
|
It's an estonian bank they bought in 2007, and it's focused primarily on non-resident banks meaning banks outside estonia. This entire investigation is their own law-firm and an internal investigation, and these numbers are only from around 6500 of the 15000 "shady"-marked accounts
What came out in the press conference today was the fact that a couple of months after the purchase Danske Bank got emails from the Russian federal bank, saying this bank they just bought was likely being used for money laundering. The report also states the CEO being informed at a couple of different meetings, so lets see what happens when 'Bagmandspolitiet' drums up their investigation.
|
worldnews
|
You don’t owe taxes on overseas income in most countries. The US is the only major country that utilizes citizenship based taxation. The US also is essentially the only one that has foreign account disclosure laws (which by the way even the Swiss banks comply with). If you’re a brit with a swiss account, nobody knows. If you’re an american, even the Swiss will tell the IRS. FATCA makes it illegal to fail to disclose a foreign account.
|
worldnews
|
Denmark is my adopted country, and has a really special place in my heart. We're supposedly one of the *least* corrupt countries in the world, so this really pisses me off.
Danske Bank is our largest bank by far - they handle over seventy five *billion* kroner (that's akin to eleven billion US) of the banking in Denmark. For a European country the metric size of Ohio, that's a hell of a lot of money.
There's a big deal of suspicion and rumor that our PM has a pretty big stake in their success, and unfortunately as the "premier" bank here they have a lot to lose if things go poorly.
I'm not calling for the execution of the people involved, but I do want (probably naively) *accountability* for their actions.
That their president gets off with a cushy severance package and some angry Facebook posts frosts my ass.
For fuck's sake, I had the police on my ass because Post Danmark lost a package that I sent to someone (it showed up two days later). This guy is getting away with defrauding a country and gets to basically retire early to a nice house on the beach on Sealand.
*Edit: My spelling is ass*
|
worldnews
|
Well heaven forbid a rich person is sent to jail and forced to do slave labor for pennies a day like the common man, Especially after they paid so much to get those laws enacted so they would still have slaves after the civil war. And paid so much to ensure that more Americans are in jail then people in any other country on earth. Many for stupid crimes like smoking a joint.
Yep you are more likely to go to jail and be enslaved in the 'land of freedom' then you are in north Korea, China, Russia or any other country you could name.
|
worldnews
|
How exactly does being rich put you in a category where you do less time for those crimes? Is it simply a matter of affording better legal counsel?
​
I mean, surely there's not part of the process that looks at tax returns and then the Judge says, "Oh, I see here that you are rich...so sorry for inconveniencing you, sir."
​
So what is it that rich people do to avoid longer sentences? Is it bribes or what?
​
|
worldnews
|
Justice is in the eye of the beholder. Or in the hands of the moneyholder rather. That's just how disjunct and corrupt our systems have become. And it's all because these policy makers have absolutely no exposure to the negative consequences of their actions. They walk around like they're invincible because they *are* virtually invincible! Nothing can stop them from doing their worst, none of these "reforms" or "commissions" or "watchdogs". It's all just a diversion in this amusement park of hypocrites and frauds.
|
worldnews
|
Quote from Terry Pratchett :
All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
|
worldnews
|
well thats not true at all
everyone is prosecuted the same way under the law
rich people usually fare better for two reasons, which have nothing to do with the actual laws themselves:
* Knowledge about how to talk to police: lots of people (even innocent people) accidentally incriminate themselves by saying stuff to police. as a rule of thumb, just do not say anything. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-duane-dont-talk-police-20160826-snap-story.html. seriously. also check out the videos of the guy who doesnt answer police questions. internalize it
* Getting a good lawyer: this is something that unfortuantely costs lots of money. there are only so many pro bono cases. if you can afford some former mob lawyer, who is good enough to keep actually bad ppl out of jail, you are probably way more likely of getting acquitted from that bar fight charge, vs using the state provided public defender. again though, its not the laws fault. thats just supply+demand -- the highest quality, most in demand product costs the most amount of money in an open market. which in this case is unfortunate
|
worldnews
|
> Danske Bank is our largest bank by far - they handle over seventy five billion kroner (that's akin to eleven billion US) of the banking in Denmark. For a European country the metric size of Ohio, that's a hell of a lot of money.
This number is way, way off. According to their website, they currently are managing 1648 billions DKK, or north of $250 billion, more than 20 times the number you posted. Not looking at rest of your post, I just know DNB, basically the Norwegian equivalent of DB, also have trillions of NOK under management, and DB shouldn't be much different so I looked it up.
|
worldnews
|
I think we have to reconsider what we mean as "rich" though. Somebody making $500k a year is pretty rich by our standards, but they would still probably be convicted for the same crimes as the "poor" people because they don't have any influence. Instead of having your subtitles be "For the Rich" and "For the Poor", imo it should be "For the people with influence" and "For the people without influence". It just so happens that the people with influence are also enormously wealthy. But that doesn't mean that all rich people are like this, only some of the big shots. There is a big difference between being rich from making $500k a year working for a company, and being rich from making millions of dollars a year as the head of that company who decides to fuck over his employees and customers for slightly increased profit.
Although I will agree that the police certainly would treat the $500k person better than a poor person. But imo once they get to court there is basically no difference except for the fact that the $500k guy can afford a better lawyer. But for someone with influence in court, they can use their connections to have the judge rule in their favor, like with the bankster above.
|
worldnews
|
> These people live behind veils because of the barbarity of poor people who do not react reasonably or with an understanding of what a common person would do in the position of the super rich.
The answer to this, I think, is that no one should be that rich or powerful to begin with. We're talking about people with so much wealth and power that they may as well be considered demigods when compared to you or me. I feel it shouldn't need to be said that this should not happen. Yeah, most people are not incorruptible. Obviously, but most people will also never have the level of responsibility that comes with having so much wealth and power that a decision they make in a tower somewhere can affect the lives of millions in potentially very serious ways.
|
worldnews
|
If you can prove with evidence that a specific person broke a specific law, they will go to jail. For example if you walk into Walgreens, pull out a 9mm and empty the cash register, it's all caught on camera and easy to prove. Open shut case you go to jail.
When a huge company with more employees than a European country has citizens sells a product that was 5-10 years later deemed 'misleading' who are you going to imprison, and for what?
|
worldnews
|
Well, some of them have the money to influence the laws or put up legal defenses that make prosecuting them nearly impossible. On top of that, rich people commit different crimes than poor people. White collar crime is also much more nebulous in its impact.
If someone gets arrested for burglarizing a home, the impact of that is REALLY apparent. Someone had their home violated. They probably won't feel safe in there for a long time, if ever. On top of that, there's potential property damage and things that they just can't get back. The impact of this is really apparent. It's easy to measure.
However, if a rich person is arrested for laundering a few billion dollars, who did this hurt? How did it hurt them. What was the collective damage to lives that occurred here? It's a lot of money, yeah, but how did it impact people? In many cases, it's super difficult to really quantify that.
If you ask me, crimes should be punished according to the amount of total damage caused to society, and by the potential to rehabilitate the criminal in question. For instance, someone stealing to survive is not only doing low damage to society, but would probably be better served with an opportunity to lead a better life than a prison sentence. Yeah, they probably aren't well equipped to lead a successful life, but that's something that can be taught. Meanwhile, in greedy banker land, there's no necessity. I don't believe that there's any point in trying to rehabilitate someone like that. They had the opportunities, and the support; everything they needed to get ahead, or in many cases, stay ahead, and they still committed serious crimes.
|
worldnews
|
As long as the US Dollar is a world reserve currency this will be the case.
The treasury shitlist is brutal because if you end up on it, banks who wish to do business with you can not do business with US banks OR with banks that do business with US banks. And no bank currently will risk that because they have to be able to somehow buy dollars, or risk all their other customers losing access to the US and access to any market/bank that uses dollars.
|
worldnews
|
What’s occurring to me today is that we are referring to this group of crimes wrong. Maybe this is why nothing is done about them. Installed of lumping them together and calling them “rich people crimes” they should be called financial crimes or institutional crimes.
They don’t apply to rich people and saying rich people in this context confuses the issue.
A poor person suddenly elevated to a high position in a bank could commit the same institutional/financial crimes. Its not the case that the ceo of wells fargo committed financial crimes because he was rich. His personal wealth played no role in what wells fargo did.
|
worldnews
|
You say this now, but public opinion has shifted over the past couple decades. Things move slow on a global scale, but there's a reckoning coming for the greedy, and these pricks who've gotten off Scot free with billions, these are the ones who will be made an example of. They'll be the ones rotting in prison for life. That probably won't be a long life either, as they'll be put in REAL prison when they're unable to protect themselves with their money. REAL prison, where the entire population of the prison has been fucked over by these CEO's greed. This doesn't end well for these wealthy people.
They know this. Why do you think people like Putin obsess over things like the Ghadafi tape? They know, every society which has had *this much* (or in many cases even milder) wealth disparity throughout history, has ended with the wealthy either dead, or in prison. The elite have plans, and means to control the general population, and keep the peasants mostly peasants, but for how long? That's the only question. How long will they be able to keep power, before they're killed or imprisoned? This is why the ultra-rich are generally miserable. They know, (many only on a subconscious level) that for them to have that much wealth, others must suffer. It's why Bill Gates gives so much away, because he knows that kind of wealth is fucking wrong. And he's well liked for it, my guess is, when the shit hits the fan, if it's in his lifetime, he'd be spared imprisonment.
The point is, if we look at things from a historical perspective, the elite get over thrown, the peasants who over threw them become the new elite, and rule for a few generations until everyone's sick of the new elite. Continuing the cycle of why bother. Let's try not having elite next time.
|
worldnews
|
US: Sometime after 2000 under George Bush Jr there was a role back of consumer protection regulations that involved fees and banks. All the banks quickly converted to making free money through fees, and it was far more profitable to nickel and dime your customers rather than compete in banking services. Late 90's, a number of debit cards would just deny sale if you over drafted, but not the major banks which love overdrafts. Wasn't unusually to get 2-3 overdrafts because they let you overdraft based on the number of purchases that went up to -$100 dollars. If I bought groceries and overdrafted for $45, the 1.10 I spent the next day for gum would also be another $45, and I was free overdraft myself as much as I wanted until I hit that -$100 limit.
Our worst bank during that time was I think CityBank which would reorder your purchases to overdraft on purpose to get the most fees-regardless of the actual order they came in on. Had $30 in your account and bought $1 worth of gun, and later $45 worth of gas... they're going to apply that $45 first to get one overdraft fee, and then that $1 dollar after to get a second overdraft fee. Despite it should have been only one fee if applied to the account correctly. It's not like that anymore because congress had to step in... but shit.
|
worldnews
|
Did he really make PCs more accessible?
The early PCs weren't remotely accessible at all. They were far less friendly than many of the competitors. People just brought them because they were "IBM". And the early versions of windows were neither better than the competition, nor were they remotely innovative.
Eventually windows got pretty good. But a big part of that is because software companies enjoy enormous economies of scale. A huge part of Microsoft's success was because they were simply in the right place at the right timne, which is not worthy of any special praise.
|
worldnews
|
"Don't you know? The laws aren't made to help people like us. Back in the old days, the _really_ old days.. it was just every man for his self, and the strongest, meanest men got all the best stuff. They got the greenest valleys while everyone else just got sand. Then they made the laws. Once the strong guys got everything they wanted, they said, 'This is fair now, this is the law.' Once they were already winning, they changed the rules up."
|
worldnews
|
This isn't accurate.
Firstly, most places tax your overseas income if you are tax resident there. The difference is, as you note, that the US taxes based solely on nationality (or if you hold a green card).
Also - FATCA applies for US disclosures, but the notion that no one will know if a Brit has a Swiss account is not true. CRS applies in that circumstance.
The reality is that these days it's very hard to have a bank account at a reputable bank without that information being available to the governments within the OECD.
|
worldnews
|
I have lived overseas in Asia for 20 years and can say with absolute accuracy that Americans are entitled, naive, and soft. We don't have the courage to do what would be needed. So its intellectual masturbation on social media until marriage, silly dna clones, and the inevitable reversion to status quo to protect one's interests.
​
It's not going to change. Americans don't know real pain. If you think you do, send me a PM. Come visit me and I'll show you millions living in poverty so stark you'd do anything to escape it. Anything.
|
worldnews
|
>Why would someone in a position to make laws equal for everyone put themselves at higher risk when the system is already written to protect those in power like themselves.
Because we're talking about a person who wants to do this becoming a politician. Do you think there are no people in the world who want things to be more evenly distributed even if it disadvantages them?
>This is exactly why being a politician should not be a career. Why would you make the rich pay a larger portion of taxes when you're in that bracket yourself?
That sounds more like an argument for "politician" not being a highly paid career.
|
worldnews
|
I would say law is law, it's just rules and on it self it can't be justice or injustice, as physics can't be bad or good. Lawmakers use this, to create justice and judges (and police with other power structures) just follows that.
Old greek statue Lady Justice is with blindfold for exactly that reason and it's good, because if you will allow someone to start interpret law you will get downfall much quicker.
​
|
worldnews
|
I would argue that no legal or government system in our world is fully fair to everyone involved. Some systems are objectively better than others, and some are just outright barbaric and cruel. All of them tend to serve the individuals at the top of the economic ladder. That concept is baked into every system by design, as the engineers of said systems are always at the top, and laws are meant to protect the status quo.
Changing the subject from "the American legal system is broken" to "many Asian legal systems are cruel and barbaric" feels like whataboutism and takes away from the point of this discussion, which is that when people feel invalidated and believe justice isn't being served, if they have the capability, they will take other measures to enact their own brand of justice. Whether it is truly fair or right becomes irrelevant. America just happens to provide this capability in the form of protest, social media and other public expression. I would argue that while dangerous and easily abused, this outlet can sometimes serve as a stopgap to help minimize absolute abuse of flawed system in which we are trapped.
So to *your* point, I would agree that we should celebrate our ability to express our views and opinions - even if that ability has the potential to lead to false accusations - because without that freedom we become trapped in a cycle of oppression similar to what we have seen in other types of governments. I would use your example as a warning of how much worse it could be, but it should not prevent us from speaking up when we feel we have been wronged.
|
worldnews
|
That last point is what happens and has been happening throughout all of history. I fail to see how major adaptations to our society, especially the positive ones we hope for (e.g. a reasonable approach in law to social media/the internet, environmental standards, etc.) Could possibly be accomplished through solely bottom up movements organized by ordinary working class individuals. I mean it could, but it wouldn't be able to happen when it's necessary and as fast as it needs to be.
Some native american groups had systems in place where a decision would not be able to be made until everyone was at the table and everyone had the chance to speak for as long as they wished. While certainly democratic, it's not like they are known for being able to adapt fast to new, unwelcome changes in their culture.
Nowadays, we are changing faster and faster as technology revolutionizes the way we interact with one another. Certainly we need people in place to put limits on Facebook and Google and keep our privacy in order without hurting our online freedom. These kinds of issues are insanely tough to deal with as a push towards freedom likely intrudes on our chance to keep our information private and vice versa. These are not decisions big groups of ordinary people are going to be able to make well. We need to put our faith in our ability to judge who the best people in our society are, and then elect them to have responsibility over the issues we cannot solve.
I mean just as much as you put your faith in doctors, or your lawyer, so too do we need to start thinking of our politicians as experts and holding them to greater standards. It might be really tough, but if 90% or more of a country's population voted in federal elections, as an example, all the politicians would raise their ears and realize that their public is interested in genuinely being more informed.
I'm not honestly sure if there are limits to how much responsibility someone should or could have. In the most ideal circumstance, we would want to push people to take as much responsibility as they can reasonably manage. And how much they can 'reasonably manage' is impossible to pin down unless you want to set limits on human potential. It's different than being able to say something like: "well a human being can only ever run X km/h, because after that our bones and muscles collapse", and that's because responsibility is significantly more abstract than that and can't even be measured except through qualia. There is no limit to the amount of faith you can generate in yourself amongst other people, and so you are able to genuinely control big chunks of the world just because important enough people are will to trust you. I don't know how willing I am to say that this is bad. It just, is how it is?
|
worldnews
|
This article is stating Edward Savarin gave up his citizenship to avoid taxes. He is avoiding paying capital gains/income tax on his stock. Yes, the 20% capital gains tax is significant with this kind of money, but it is sad that he is avoiding paying taxes to the economy responsible for helping to make him almost a billionaire. However, if he had already paid taxes on his gains, he could give up his citizenship and not have to pay any extra taxes. My comment was asking about what facts you have to support your claim, not OP's. Thank you for taking the time to post the article, but I believe you were incorrect about taxation in your post.
|
worldnews
|
Yeah, I don't know why you would have been downvoted for that.
It's a rather agreeable cautionary statement, warning of the difference - and too-frequent disagreement - between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.
Likewise, [the statement I quoted](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_justitia_ruat_caelum) is the related cautionary statement of following the letter of the law too closely or too literally, such that the result is a technically-correct/legal action with a morally-incorrect result that is contrary to the spirit of the law.
>In subsequent versions of this legend, this principle became known as "Piso's justice", a term that characterizes sentences that are carried out or passed from retaliation - whose intentions are technically correct, but morally wrong - and this could be construed as a negative interpretation of the meaning of *Fiat justitia ruat caelum*.
(It was also somewhat-recently popularized as the tagline to the 2014 anime, [Aldnoah.Zero](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldnoah.Zero).)
|
worldnews
|
This is the kind of criticism that goes somewhere though. Maxal group has a lawyer, a lawsuit, and this is a news report that covers the issue. Sure, it's probably not enough, but this is the kind of specificity and action that actually can get shit done. If the mayor is in bed with Davies, the people have to strip the mayor of his seat in the election. This isn't a dead end. If this was my town, I would be pissed. I would be talking it up and making sure that at least my friends and family knew that this was an issue important to me, and urge that it should be important enough to them too so that it might have some impact on their vote.
|
worldnews
|
Yeah - sorry - I'm not the guy you were replying to in the previous post.
I have previously researched the cost of renouncing US citizenship and it is non-zero for some wealthier individuals: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2017/02/27/renounce-u-s-heres-how-irs-computes-exit-tax/#5670ea2b287d
> The Exit Tax is computed as if you sold all your assets on the day before you expatriated, and had to report the gain. Currently, net capital gains can be taxed as high as 23.8%, including the net investment income tax.
I haven't really made any claims. I mean outside of the two that I've linked to. "Facebook founder renounced to minimize tax burden" and now "exit taxes are charged when you renounce"
Now - the exit tax *generally* only applies to people with more than 2 million in assets ... but people with less than 2 million can trigger an exit tax if they haven't filed/paid their appropriate taxes in the last 5 years.
|
worldnews
|
For all the Americans here who've never been-
Cuba is gorgeous. The land and the people.
They live their days outside, with their friends and family, making art, doing ballet, playing baseball. There's a weird number of Michael Jackson impersonators that are fucking amazing.
They make amazing Pina Colada, relax like nobodies business, and enjoy fast cars.
They are, also, not generally douches about non hetro-normal lifestyles.
They're wonderful, the country is wonderful, and I'm so excited to be going back next Feb.
|
worldnews
|
[If only there was a way to verify yourself...](http://theconversation.com/you-dont-need-to-build-a-rocket-to-prove-the-earth-isnt-flat-heres-the-simple-science-88106)
>One of the best documented methods for determining the Earth’s roundness was first performed (to our knowledge) by the ancient Greeks. This was achieved by comparing the shadows of sticks in different locations. When the sun was directly overhead in one place, the stick there cast no shadow. At the same time in a city around 500 miles north, the stick there did cast a shadow.
>If the Earth were flat then both sticks should show the same shadow (or lack of) because they would be positioned at the same angle towards the sun. The ancient Greeks found the shadows were different because the Earth was curved and so the sticks were at different angles. They then used the difference in these angles to calculate the circumference of the Earth. They managed to get it to within 10% of the true value – not bad for around 250 BC.
It is just so simple to verify today, in the age of the internet. They could use their flat-Earther network to independently carry out this experiment and answer the question definitively.
They spend so much time and energy explaining why the Earth is flat yet no energy is spent on this experiment.
That tells you everything. Everything.
|
worldnews
|
Its believed that Columbus' belief that the earth was round stemmed from the bible in genesis, which spoke of spheres. His Christian faith is what led to the world learning of a different continent and a round earth (other than the Vikings who were well aware). What's ironic is that today the biggest proponents of Flat Earth society are *Christians*, and many articles have anecdotally stated that a lot of people have converted to Christian ideology because of the society. We, with all the information we would ever need to thrive mere taps of our fingers away, are more ignorant and self centered today, than we were 2000 years ago, when the average person had never traveled more than a few miles from home.
|
worldnews
|
That’s the an odd thing. The bible doesn’t say anything about the world being spherical. There are some mentions of domes, but that’s it. It tends to refer to the land as being a laid out sheet, being held in place or up with the mountains.
Columbus’ mistake was in measure. Stadion (the measure the Greek calculation) was between something like 157m and 209m. Columbus just thought the Greek established circumference of the earth was in the smaller measure. So, with the size of Asia and Europe, a sea route to Asia across the Atlantic should have been relatively short.
|
worldnews
|
They claimed the region hundreds of years ago, so other people's claim (based on that past) today is irrelevant. Too much time has passed.
You then saying that them claiming the region hundreds of years ago is irrelevant today because it's long ago is just retarded. Unless of course you want to reinstate all the borders and nations as they were 1000 years ago, if that's enough for you. Is that what you want?
|
worldnews
|
I was pointing out a flaw in your argument such that it could be used at any time.
​
\> you want to reinstate all the borders and nations as they were 1000 years ago
​
nation states aren't that old. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation\_state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state)
​
Drawing a line in the sand and then time passes doesn't remove the moral imperative to be kind to other humans. If you disagree your a shit lord.
​
|
worldnews
|
>I was pointing out a flaw in your argument such that it could be used at any time.
It can be used at any time to say what I said. If you just use it in a different context, it has nothing to do with what I said. I said that the Hungarians' claim today is legitimate because they've been there for a long time. As is the US' claim. Or the Canadians'. Or the Australians'. Or the Italians'. Or the Mexicans'. Or the Syrians', Iraqis', Afghans', Japanese's, or whatever. Russia's claim on Crimea can be argued. Or soon China's claim on territories in Africa. But to argue that the Hungarians owe anyone anything because "they" (actually their ancestors from hundreds of years ago) also came to that land from elsewhere... That's retarded.
>Drawing a line in the sand and then time passes doesn't remove the moral imperative to be kind to other humans. If you disagree your a shit lord.
*you're
|
worldnews
|
when I saw the link to the WaPo article, I felt better about the credibility of the news, but I wish that the wapo link had been posted instead of "talkingpointsmemo.com". You gotta admit, that does *not* sound like a very reputable source.
And, after checking [mediabiasfactcheck.com](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/talking-points-memo/), it isn't:
> These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), **publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.**
I wish people would think of this stuff before posting charged content from unreputable sources. Even if it's true I (not unreasonably) end up having reservations of the validity of the piece.
|
worldnews
|
> when I saw the link to the WaPo article, I felt better about the credibility of the news, but I wish that the wapo link had been posted instead of "talkingpointsmemo.com".
Oh yeah, I don't disagree with you there. I think all news subreddits should nuke meta-stories in favor of the actual primary links.
BUT...
"MediaBiasFactCheck" isn't remotely credible enough to weigh in on anything, quite frankly.
From their FAQ on the guy who runs the site:
> Who in the heck is Dave Van Zandt?
>
> Dave Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. **Dave currently works full time in the health care industry**. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.
Yeah... if I were you, I'd not rely on that site.
TPM may be biased, but that doesn't necessarily make the content they post disreputable. They've done some good work in the past (see here, for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/business/worldbusiness/24iht-blogger.4.10338691.html).
|
worldnews
|
I'm glad we agree on the first point, maybe we should petition the mods to make that a rule.
Can you elaborate on why MediaBiasFactCheck is considered unreputable? It's analyses are based on Pew Research studies, and I have yet to find a site it's horribly off on. Also, it has a team of a dozen people performing the analyses--Dave just started the group, he doesn't run anything. They are also extremely transparent about their funding and methodology, and it's about as mathematical as you can get for bias-assessment: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, as I am not sure that the quote you cited speaks to the trustworthiness of the source.
|
worldnews
|
> Can you elaborate on why MediaBiasFactCheck is considered unreputable?
The guy has zero expertise in media analysis. He doesn't even work in the industry. There is no "Pew Research studies" that give a formula for determining media bias. Pew does study media issues, but does not issue a stamp of BIASED.
> Also, it has a team of a dozen people performing the analyses--Dave just started the group, he doesn't run anything
What team? Who are they? What are their qualifications and background in media/media analysis? Why are they experts able to grade media outlets' supposed bias?
The FAQ indicates they have zero actual expertise.
> **None of the MBFC team are professional journalists**. We actually see this as an advantage as we are media consumers just like you. Each person on the team is college educated in a **variety of fields** with a common interest in keeping media accountable for their words and information.
But, again, who are they?
They have info on *some,* but not all of them. Let's examine.
> Aaron O’Leary: I’m a Politics graduate from Ireland and an aspiring political correspondent.
So, an Irishman in Ireland judging the "bias" of American media outlets based on a politics degree from Ireland. I wouldn't dare presume to understand the potential biases of Irish media, quite frankly, much less be able to "rate" them.
> Karen O’Connor Rubsam: a CFA charterholder and retired CPA having spent 20+ years in the independent accounting and reinsurance industries
Financial experience is great and at least she looks like she's in the US. But it does not make you qualified to rate entire media outlets.
> Kenneth White: resides in California with his wife. Ken is not registered to any party, leans left but strives for center in his reporting, and wishes all this Neo-Nazi business would hide its head in the sand once again.
That is literally the info we're given. Do you trust him as an expert on the media?
> Jim Fowler: is currently working toward pursuing a degree in Psychology/Addiction
Media expertise? Nah.
They don't even give bios for the other four people listed. I found info on one of them.
Faith Locke Siewert appears to be a photographer, but not a journalist. Can't tell if she's in the United States, but she was born in London.
No apparent journalism experience or expertise.
Overall, I'm not seeing any reason to believe that any of these people have any expertise whatsoever.
And really, the burden of proof on someone claiming expertise should be on *them,* not me to debunk it.
Next, their methodology is comical. First, this, from his FAQ:
> Keep in mind this is not a scientifically proven methodology.
So, it's just made up shit. I guess at least they admit it.
Then, from the methodology page:
> When calculating bias we are not just looking at political bias, but also how factual the information is and if they provide links to credible, verifiable sources.
Those are two completely separate data points, that are somehow represented with one dot on a scale. That makes zero sense.
The rest is just subjective with no actual, meaningful criteria laid out.
Their four "categories" are far, far too vague to be of actual use and too subject to subjectivity. What are "loaded words?" How do you quantify backing up claims? How do you evaluate sourced evidence? What is reporting "both sides?" Define "endorse a particularly political ideology." Define "extreme."
Let's check out some of their "least biased" news sites.
Know Your Meme (this is news?): https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/know-your-meme/
The Jordan Times (this is literally owned by the Jordanian government): https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-jordan-times/
The Xinhua News Agency (literally state-run Chinese propaganda): https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/xinhua-news-agency/
Voice of America (literally US-owned propaganda): https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/voice-of-america/
The Meme Policeman (wtf is this shit even): https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-meme-policeman/
PR Newswire (this is literally a wire service for press releases. This is the opposite of news): https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pr-newswire/
I could probably pick apart more, but you get the point.
The entire site is pretty much silly.
|
worldnews
|
I mean, this isn't some conspiracy claim, this is proven facts. It is no secret that the CIA is heavily invested in news organizations since the 1960's.
Church Committee has a report that details part of the CIA's media operation. Is there any reason to think they stopped?
No one is claiming that the CIA creates false media companies, they utilize existing companies and journalists, some willing and some unwilling; some organizations are well known(WaPo) and some are small independent outfits.
|
worldnews
|
>The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
\- John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under Nixon
|
worldnews
|
I think one of this issues is the stigmatization of drug users. If society would accept this as a medical issue, more people when offered help would get help. Many people who go on to abuse drugs have an untreated or undiagnosed mental illness, and often people self medicate with drugs. If someone gets continually caught with drugs, instead of jail, maybe forced rehab is an answer. Whether jail or rehab, they no longer will have access to their drug. Another thing would be for example with heroin, for those who just can't quit, safe injecting sites. Like I've said, the best way we can approach this is more on the health medical issue side and less on the criminal justice side. Portugal seems to be doing very well with their implementation of something just like this.
|
worldnews
|
For a lot of people it might be a medical issue, for a lot of others it’s not.
Many localities have implemented drug type programs in jails/prisons, which essentially act as a rehab facility.
But if you take away all criminal aspects of it you’re taking away all avenues that the government has that can force someone’s hand in getting treatment. There is then no consequence for a drug user simply saying “no” to getting help.
What portugal is doing is great. But the dynamics of what may work in Portugal may not work in the US. When Portugal made the move to decriminalize, drug use was already relatively low, that’s not the case in the US
|
worldnews
|
That was a big part of my point. Ideally people are forced to go to rehab after a simple possession charge, but people who have shown no desire to get off hard drugs even when they’re given the resources and help to do so should face stiffer consequences. Actual punishments.
I’m 100% for giving people a chance and opportunity to change, and resources to help them change.
I’m also 100% for punishing people who refuse that help, or refuse to change because they don’t want to.
|
worldnews
|
This. The war on drugs may have been possible because hemp was poised to replace timber as a less expensive source for raw materials for paper, but this is why the war on drugs continued, and why it continues today. It gives the government power. The fact that most people, when hearing about someone arrested for drugs go "yeah, well, shouldn't have been doing drugs then..." Gives our government TREMENDOUS power. Even if you think "that's not me, I don't do drugs, so I'm at no risk." Think again. You almost definitely know/love someone who does drugs, or has done drugs. Enormous, unchecked, power.
|
worldnews
|
I don't have time to really delve into it right now, but I did a quick read through and it seems most of their concerns lie in children/adolescents using the drug, with lines like this:
>Evidence from both animal and human studies suggests that the severity of the effects of cannabis use on cognitive development is dependent on the age when cannabis use begins.
But that's still illegal last I checked and rightfully so. I'm sure children or adolescents who consume alcohol regularly would have similar issues. Nobody is advocating for drugs for kids. There's also this line from the article:
> Cannabis has a negative impact on cognition; however, the current body of research literature does not provide evidence of significant, long-term effects due to cannabis use.
Which would seem to suggest that /u/priestjim may be correct or he may not, but there is no research pointing either way. The article ends by suggesting that more research should be conducted into the effects of cannabis and at least in that regard, I fully agree.
|
worldnews
|
You’re absolutely right. Alcohol causes a ton of problems. And someone who is a severe alcoholic isn’t much different than a drug user.
But there are fundamental differences between alcohol and hard drugs.
Alcohol in moderation is fine. When consumed responsibly, it’s relatively harmless. You can’t say the same thing about drugs like Meth and PCP.
And some states have ways of petitioning the courts to have some involuntarily committed into rehab, not unlike what most states do for mentally ill people. The requirements aren’t all that much different either.
But then you just get a revolving door of people getting treatment, not following through after it’s over, relapsing, and they’re right back in rehab because there’s not really any consequences.
And it’s also worth noting that there are still several criminal charges associated with alcohol, many of them having to do with being intoxicated in public.
I’m all for helping people and giving people resources to overcome their personal afflictions. But I’m also adamantly against absolving people of all personal responsibility. At some point you have to hold someone accountable for their actions. I’m not in support of forcibly sending someone to rehab a dozen times because they have no desire to stop using PCP. At some point they need to sit in a jail cell.
I also strongly believe that makers/traffickers/dealers should get very stiff penalties, and that they should be the focus more so than simple users
|
worldnews
|
So, I'm going to start by saying that I mostly agree with you when it comes to things like Meth or PCP. I suspect people get sucked into that addiction due to lower cost/ready availability more than anything else. Once you're addicted, you're basically just doing it to not feel terrible and if you do manage to get off but start struggling with life again, you're back into the problem of cheap/readily available. I mention all of this because if we were treating all drugs the way we treat alcohol (legal with some small restrictions), I imagine the market for things like PCP and Meth would evaporate *really* quickly.
>And it’s also worth noting that there are still several criminal charges associated with alcohol, many of them having to do with being intoxicated in public.
I'm perfectly fine with applying public intoxication laws to drugs too. I'm talking about literally copying the existing laws surrounding alcohol and pasting it into a new document, then doing a "Find and Replace" on "alcohol" and replacing it with "Marijuana", "Heroin", "whatever" and passing those as new laws. But its worth noting that public intoxication laws are enforced almost entirely based on whether you *appear* intoxicated and a large portion of drug users function perfectly normally in society and have few if any obvious tells that they're on a drug. You probably have at least a few coworkers that you see everyday who are on heavy painkiller prescriptions but you wouldn't even know it without digging through their prescription history. I don't think these laws would have as much of an effect as you may think to curb drug use.
As to personal responsibility, I never suggested absolving people of personal responsibility at all. Committing crimes to further an addiction should of course still be prosecuted, just as committing crimes to put food on your table is still prosecuted, but you seem to be suggesting that being addicted is itself something that must be punished, and there I wholly disagree. If you aren't harming anyone but yourself, then its nobody else's business. If you are harming others, you should be punished and or sent to a rehab program.
That leads me to rehab programs. Rehab programs need to be more than just a program to get clean right now. If your life sucks and you turn to drugs to feel better about it, getting clean won't help if your life still sucks. You need more than just someone to hold your hand while you puke up your guts, you need someone to actually help you improve your life longer term, otherwise the rehab will be ineffective in most cases. And if you turned to drugs because your life sucked, you probably don't know how to improve your life on your own and may not even know where to start looking for help. A rehab center would be an ideal candidate for teaching people, particularly low income people, how to improve their lives.
This is one of the areas that our current system is woefully unprepared for, regardless of what drug you're addicted to. Most treatment centers focus on getting the drugs out of your system and maybe offering some addiction counselling, which usually amounts to trying to reprogram your reaction to stress or teach you to upend your life and avoid anything that even remotely reminds you that drugs exist, but offer little if anything when it comes to truly improving your life.
|
worldnews
|
I think we agree on most points, but i will clarify the whole “addiction as a crime” thing. I don’t think possession hard drugs should be legal. There’s no reason for it. For possession, i think rehab is a good punishment. However, after repeat offenses, and rehab has shown to be ineffective, it is at that point i believe criminal elements should come into play.
Give people a chance to better themselves, but we shouldn’t be sending people to rehab a dozen times.
And yea, rehab centers should do more and there should be more of them. That being said, the people still have to have a sense of self responsibility and willpower to be a responsible adult and take the actions to stay clean.
That’s my point when i say that taking away all criminal elements is absolving drug users of personal responsibility. If the most “punishment” they ever receive for possession is getting sent to rehab, the only incentive they have to better themselves is their own willpower and desires. And for a lot of drug users that may not always be enough. Rehab would most likely be taken a lot more seriously if people knew that jail was an eventual option if they kept surrounding themselves with drugs.
And as far as “if they don’t harm anyone else then it’s nobody else’s business”, i disagree with that. I’m not going to wait for the dude who has PCP on him to take it and then beat the shit out someone and go crazy.
That’s like saying DUIs shouldn’t be a crime unless someone gets hurt, the whole point is to stop something before it happens.
|
worldnews
|
Imagine being at a party and trying to figure out what you are going to get for food. You want to get Mexican food, so you make your case and have a vote. Pizza wins, so you say no no no. We’re going to try this again. You make your case and wings are the most popular choice. So you again throw a fit and say we need to vote again. This time Mexican Food wins by a small margin and you declare victory saying democracy has spoken. Here you’re just an asshole at a party, but when a government does it it’s way worse.
|
worldnews
|
Another fun example. Imagine that the US had single issue referendums. Now imagine that the GOP, since they control both houses of Congress call a referendum to ban abortion. First time it’s called it fails, and abortion stays legal. So they call for another referendum. It fails again, so they call for another. This time it passes and it’s put into law in a way that can’t be reversed . Would you really accept that people just changed their minds at that was a legitimate strategy?
|
worldnews
|
More alike someone asks at the start of the party if all want a pizza and that it is the best pizza on the world.
Then while the party is going on you hear from various sources that it is not really a good pizza and furthermore much more expensive than expected.
Now the question is would you try to vote again before ordering or would you stick to your decision just because you said so at the start.
|
worldnews
|
More like you all agree on pizza and then call in to "negotiate" with the pizza place. You're on the phone and you're hearing the options and the costs, and you go back and forth with the people at your party and the pizza place as you nail down the deal, and maybe after the people at your party hear the options and the wait time and the cost, they opt not to get pizza and get Chinese instead.
Modern day technology makes direct democracy more and more possible. That's what the Brexit referendum was at the start. So as the deal gets negotiated and the consequences of the withdrawal shape up, why should it be representatives making decisions for the masses instead of the masses?
There are a lot of problems with direct democracy, but I don't think it's fair to assume the EU will not honor the withdrawal if the people vote to express themselves during the various stages of negotiations and ultimately commit to Leave.
|
worldnews
|
Well, if it was a fair vote, then I’d say so. But this is something that will have extremely far reaching consequences, and will not be reversible once it fully goes through. The original brexit campaign was based on lies, and all it’s main people just bolted. Maybe if they started a campaign to factually inform the public, then had another vote. But it’s even hard to extrapolate the consequences, since the government still doesn’t really know what type of brexit they want.
|
worldnews
|
>The EU is literally willing to ban memes over IP and copyrigh
That alone tells me you are very misinformed of both Article 11 and 13, regardless the purpose of those articles is change how copyright is enforced, not what is covered. Ie: who and when someone is responsible for a copyright infringement.
It's a terrible piece of legislation but its not quite the same thing we are talking about here.
America takes IP to another level, and forces it on other nations. This is why the TPP was bad up until the Americans left.
America is the only country that sends FBI agents to foreign nations to arrest a kid illegally downloading music. America is one of the only countries that uses Federal Criminal Investigation resources for what is technically a civil matter. America is the only country that regularly updates it's copyright terms close to expirary to benefit the companies before the lose patents (75 + life? comeon...)
The EU may be pulling stupid shit here, but they do not force other countries to adopt their IP standards outside of the EU borders.
It's not remotely comparable.
|
worldnews
|
But we are comparing enforcement, which is the whole point. The EU forcing their standards on others and the US enforcing their standards on others. If you think that the EU's laws being forced on companies, that make up the bulk of the *world wide* web, would have no impact outside their border, then you are sorely mistaken. Your argument was that IP was just an American concern, it's clearly not. If it wasn't a concern, they wouldn't have to make these laws on how enforce something they don't care about.
|
worldnews
|
The EU is not forcing their standards on others.
> If you think that the EU's laws being forced on companies, that make up the bulk of the world wide web, would have no impact outside their border, then you are sorely mistaken.
It may, that's up to the companies and their business model. The EU is not actively going to another country like New Zeland and saying "hey, this service operating within your country is using IP's that someone in our country has, we need you to extradite them".
They are simply saying to operate here, these are the rules.
>our argument was that IP was just an American concern, it's clearly not.
Maybe worded a tad poorly on my part. Americans are more concerned about IP internationaly then others. In the context of our discussion we are comparing tariffs with ignoring IP rights. The only country that really pushes IP regulations outside of their own borders is the US. Other countries don't really care as much as to what Canada is doing in this case. In the context of our conversation, only Americans really care.
Canada isn't really ignoring IP, they are ignore American IP which i believe is equivalent to ignore trade agreements and applying tariffs.
Canada has its own IP system, as part of Nafta one of the concessions Canada made was that it had to treat American patents equivalent to Canadian. I see no problem that if Americans are going to selectively ignore parts of Nafta during negotiations, why Canada can't as well?
|
worldnews
|
India has already done this. There are requirements before they're allowed to move to production. It's not a case of "Hey that looks cool, lets copy that!" it's more along the lines of:
\- Is the medication available in our market
\- Is the medication available for a price that doesn't make half of the country go bankrupt for the rest of their lives
This measure is a direct reaction to the likenesses of Martin Shkreli and the 400% price hike on another drug just this week "because maximizing profits is what we're supposed to do", making a single shot of it incredibly unaffordable.
They're not going to be assholes and just copy everything. They adhere to the same free market principles as the US, they just believe that free markets have limits and that its excesses can be regulated.
|
worldnews
|
Saudis had the US by the nipples for YEARS because of the petro, but now you guys are fracking.
We however have the largest reserve of oil on the planet thanks to our dirty ass Oil Sands. So there is sweet fuck all the Saudis can hold over us.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/saudi-arabia-wheat-1.4780595
The Saudis never had a strong position. We don't need a single one of their exports, but they sure as fuck needs ours. So their people is who takes the pain, when they attempt to slight us.
|
worldnews
|
Depends on how you want to view the gains.
Personally I think the toll its takes just on the environment alone isn't worth it, especially what its doing to the rivers in Alberta. The farmers sure have quite a bit to say about the cost on this particular angle.
However we ship it to be refined, again at a further cost, but at some interesting gains.
The US and Canada relationship, the real reason its going to last, no matter what damn idiot is in control of either one, is the oil money. The Billions in revenue that travels back and forth between Alberta and Texas is fucking insane and it doesn't take kindly to disruptions.
As you notice both countries will throw tariffs on just about everything, even big Pharma is in the cross hairs and targeted. Yet neither country says boo about oil, and I'm smugly assuming that won't change. As no industry has the kind of money the Oil industry has.
|
worldnews
|
Pretty much the entire Russian security apparatus is gopniks at this point, taking their lead from Putin and the other former street thugs who rose to power through the KGB and mafia in the 80s and 90s. Did you see the commander of the Russian National Guard (who was previously Putin's personal body guard) went on their official social media account to make a video literally challenging Alexei Navalny to a street fight, threatening to "pound [his] face into tenderized steak"?
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-14/russia-s-thugs-may-be-too-much-for-its-technocrats?srnd=premium-europe
|
worldnews
|
>You implied it when you wrote 'They invade other countries' air spaces' while discussing this particular story.
Nope I was referencing my other comment in this thread that you are responding to. I said that they invade American and Canadian airspace. If you look at this thread I never once said they invaded UK airspace, nor did I imply it lol.
It's not my fault that you can't follow a simple conversation lady.
|
worldnews
|
> they meddle in elections
1996 Russian election, anyone? Clinton got the IMF to give Russia $10bn loan because the communist party had a *huge* lead in the polls as the harsh transition to capitalism was screwing their country with crime and corruption, this would have won them the election and re-started the cold war. After the loan, there was a colossal swing in the opinion polls - The US literally bought it.
|
worldnews
|
ahh now we're moving goal posts! So here's more
>Russia has advised the US to stop sending military planes close to its border days after the Pentagon accused a Russian fighter jet of an “unsafe interaction” in the Black Sea.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-us-black-sea-air-force-planes-fly-near-border-fighter-jet-unsafe-interaction-black-sea-a8191376.html
>A Russian Su-27 jet performed an unsafe intercept of a US Navy surveillance plane while it was flying in international airspace over the Black Sea Monday, three defense officials told CNN.
>https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/29/politics/russia-jet-us-navy-black-sea/index.html
Thanks for playing, ya dumb cunt
|
worldnews
|
oh so now its the us allies haven't done the same thing oh ok
>In a separate incident, Russia said an MiG-31 jet fighter had intercepted a Norwegian patrol plane over the Barents Sea. Russia's Defence Ministry identified the plane as a P-3 Orion anti-submarine aircraft.
The Russian Defence Ministry complained that the Norwegian plane had flown close to Russia's state border with its transponders switched off. The Norwegian military confirmed the encounter, but said it was "normal."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3770263/usaf-russia-airforce-nato-baltic-sea/
|
worldnews
|
Because other countries don't do this? France deposed Gadaffi and fucked up Libya (more). UK did it with Iran. Canada keeps supplying the saudis with weapons to keep fucking up Yemen. It would be easier to list the countries there the US didn't meddle in one way or another.
Its a fucked up standard practice by EVERYONE. Lets get off our high horse.
oh also the US does this exact same shit in the Black Sea to test Russian response times, etc. Or used to before Putin's puppet was installed.
|
worldnews
|
After doing some research, I am pretty certain that 121.5 MHz is well known internationally and reserved for emergency communication by the ICAO, of which Russia is a member. I don't know if the "Standards and Recommended Practices for Aeronautical Telecommunications" is actually international treaty or just a recommendation - but I have a hard time believing that Russia isn't aware of these international standards or that their military would "accidentally forget" about the frequency when conducting a mission close to another nation's sovereign airspace.
For reference, [Annex 10, Volume 2, 5.2.2.1.1.1](https://www.icao.int/Meetings/anconf12/Document%20Archive/AN10_V2_cons%5B1%5D.pdf) states that "Aircraft on long over-water flights... shall continuously guard the VHF emergency frequency 121.5 MHz".
|
worldnews
|
You've left out (deliberately I suspect) a very important part of Annex 10, Volume 2, 5.2.2.1.1.1.
​
>Aircraft on ong over-water flights, or on flights over designated areas over which the carriage of an emergency locator transmitter (ELT) is required, shall continuously guard the VHF emergency frequency 121.5 MHz, **except for those periods when aircraft are carrying out communications on other VHF channels or when airborne equipment limitations or cockpit duties do not permit simultaneous guarding of two channels.**
​
I'll also state it again - **121.5 isn't a controlled frequency**. Not monitoring 121.5 isn't the same as ignoring air traffic control.
|
worldnews
|
I left it out because it is irrelevant. It also doesn't matter that 121.5 isn't a controlled frequency (whatever that even means).
They know that 121.5Mhz exists. They know what it is used for. They know that they are flying in controlled airspace, and additionally flying close to sovereign airspace. They know that they do not have a flight plan. They know that ATC will be trying to contact them on that frequency. This isn't a solo pilot flying a Cessna. This is a crew of highly trained military pilots flying a strategic bomber. They have million dollar radios capable of monitoring two channels at the same time. They have multiple crew who are able to monitor two channels at the same time.
|
worldnews
|
>I left it out because it is irrelevant.
​
No, it's absolutely not irrelevant. It's ENTIRELY relevant because it provides entirely valid reasons as to why 121.5 need not be monitored.
​
>They know that they are flying in controlled airspace
​
Where did you come to that conclusion? What controlled airspace were they in, exactly? Who's airspace was it? What class of controlled airspace was it? If they were operating within controlled airspace, why would the controlling authority be trying to contact them on 121.5 instead of the prescribed control frequency?
​
Citation needed.
​
>They have million dollar radios
​
I had to laugh at this. They'll have more than one radio - sure - as is typical for most aircraft. 2 VHF and an HF radio, likely. However they may well be monitoring other frequencies and being a military flight they'll be operating under their own subset of rules - of which there is no global standard anyway - so trying to quote ICAO doesn't mean much.
​
​
|
worldnews
|
Here is a Jewish paper writing about the complicated system. It's money for the family.
Israeli military court convicts even Palestinan dissidents and enforces military laws on a civilian population.
To combat that PA gives blanket payment to any family in Israeli jail. It's not for murder or terrorism. A political prisoners or a theif's family would get the same money as well.
It's to support families not terrorists. It does result in cases like this where a geniune terrorist's family gets payments but the payment is so that the families can live. It has no relation to the crime committed.
https://forward.com/news/israel/348017/exclusive-does-aid-to-palestinians-subsidize-the-families-of-terrorists/
EXCLUSIVE: Palestinian 'Terror Payments' — A Complicated History – The Forward
Don't downvote me for explaining the reason behind this fund.
|
worldnews
|
You know this is talking about the Palestinian portion of Israel taxes which is basically Palestinian money?
You realize that those people haven't been paid and Israel's definition of terrorism might differ from the Palestinian definition. I'm not arguing this specific case but in general its not strange that some labeled terrorists by Israel would be seen as a martyr by their enemy.
EU and UN money goes to many good uses including education and refugee support which is very much needed for Palestinians at home and refugees in neighbouring states.
|
worldnews
|
Fuck terror and terrorists. Being related to one does not make you guilty of anything. Destroying family homes is in violation of international law but we all know Israel is above the law.
Israel supports illegal settlers and a huge army that terrorises Palestinians.
Let me spin it once more, would Israel not destroy the home of a known terrorist if the PA did not pay the terrorist? Make it look like the two are related when they are not.
Also just for certainty, Israel has been doing this since it's inception inheriting this barbaric practice from the British mandate. It has nothing to do with payments for terrorists.
|
worldnews
|
Fuck terrorists but Israel should just try to dissuade them the civilized way with reasoned debate, harsh language and sternly written letters. /s
What's barbaric is sending [teens to murder teens](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36671991) in their bedroom as they sleep and get praised as a martyr by his own mother for doing it. But don't hold it against the family.
> Israel supports illegal settlers and a huge army that terrorises Palestinians.
If Israel wanted to follow the same 'rules of engagement' (or rather a lack thereof) as their adversaries there wouldn't be a blade of grass left standing in Gaza or the West Bank. The settlers enjoy a disproportionate voice in gov't due to the rep-by-pop parliament that turns fringe parties into kingmakers. I don't support settlers because I don't share their belief that the only way to live an authentic Jewish life is to live in 'biblical' Israel. If you're pointing to settlements as the cause of strife however, you're ignoring the fact that violent attacks on Israelis predates the settlements.
> Also just for certainty, Israel has been doing this since it's inception inheriting this barbaric practice from the British mandate. It has nothing to do with payments for terrorists.
When someone is resigned to kill as many people as they can until they are killed in turn or apprehended it has everything to do with dissuading terrorists from carrying out attacks if it gives them pause to consider that their family will pay the price for their acts of indiscriminate violence. Who fears a lengthy prison sentence when they're strapped with a bomb belt and promised a glorious afterlife as a martyr?
edit: Violent attacks, not 'violence attacks'
|
worldnews
|
> If they're looking for cheap real estate then one possible solution to getting them to live somewhere less contentious is subsidized housing. That same approach is ineffective against fanatics because even if you paid them to live somewhere else they wouldn't.
Agreed.
> I see Israel becoming a 'mini-Coruscant' because there's really nowhere else to go but up.
You're most likely correct, much of the land simply isn't worth trying to develop.
|
worldnews
|
You're painting everyone with the same brush and providing one example to justify the thousands of demolitions done by Israel. This is not how you achieve justice.
The whole broken record of kill us all is getting old. Israel kills approximately 10 innocent Palestinians for every innocent Israeli they lose. The reality shows Israel is the one on a killing spree and not the other way around.
Would you be ok if rapists daughters were sent to prison? Or maybe we can put wives on house arrest? If you rape a woman I will destroy your mom's home, does it sound better? Not to me you can't make the daughter or mother pay for a crime they didn't commit just to deter the rapist. This is some fucked up logic and fails on many levels.
To return to my main point home demolitions are a grave injustice and in violation of international law. What about all the non terrorist homes Israel destroys, what about all the villages? What about homes taken away from Palestinians and given to Israelis. Israel amongst many things is a serial home destroyer and land grabber. They don't do it because of terrorist attacks they do it to expand Israel and choke Palestine and Palestinians. This whole terrorist bs is just another cover another reason to intensify the Palestinian struggle and make the Palestinians suffer.
|
worldnews
|
> You're painting everyone with the same brush and providing one example to justify the thousands of demolitions done by Israel. This is not how you achieve justice.
I'm providing a salient example of pure evil to make my point.
> The whole broken record of kill us all is getting old. Israel kills approximately 10 innocent Palestinians for every innocent Israeli they lose. The reality shows Israel is the one on a killing spree and not the other way around.
Proportional response does not mean 'equal kill ratios'. Israel is not on a 'killing spree', Palestinian militants do everything they can to [exacerbate collateral damage](https://nypost.com/2015/05/02/un-report-outlines-how-hamas-used-kids-as-human-shields/) to get sympathy out of bleeding hearts, yourself for example. Again, if Israel wanted to go on a killing spree they have the means. They practice restraint because they aren't the 'barbarians' you insist they are.
> To return to my main point home demolitions are a grave injustice and in violation of international law.
To return to my point, if someone is committed to carrying out a violent attack to the extent where they do not expect to survive it anything that can be done to dissuade such violence must be on the table. You can't put a corpse on trial and rehabilitate it in prison. You're more concerned with the perpetrator than the victims of violence because you see them as the underdogs. Your priorities are upside down.
> Israel amongst many things is a serial home destroyer and land grabber.
Israel removed every single Israeli from Gaza and returned the Sinai to Egypt, some land grab. Land for peace doesn't work unilaterally. Israel continues to build in Area C of the West Bank within the parts of the territory Israel expects to keep following the implementation of the two state solution.
Try erecting structures without a permit or even extending your home and see what happens.
> What about homes taken away from Palestinians and given to Israelis
What about the Arab League ethnically cleansing 850,000 Jews following '48 in retaliation to a conflict they weren't a party to? What about their homes? Their property? Their communities that were older than the states they resided within. Israel is supposed to take a hit coming *and* going? What would have been an involuntary population exchange similar to India & Pakistan post-colonialism remains one sided because the Arab League maintains the Palestinians as political pawns against Israel and as a way to deflect their citizens' anger.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.