I've worked with and around veterans who've suffered from TBIs.
They're super-common in our theaters lousy with IEDs. Our armed services have quite a bit they they'd really rather not discuss with the public.
Far worse than heroes getting shipped home in pine boxes is having heroes getting shipped home with pieces missing. And worse than that are our guys (and gals) getting shipped home looking intact, but not having all their marbles anymore. Most of our troopers who end up having a close encounter with an IED fall into the last category.
This is a bit of an inconvenience for the US Army, who then rather than simply dumping the remains into a serene plot of land, has a living, breathing remainder of a person that needs to be cared for for the remainder of his days.
That can get expensive fast.
But rather than seeking out new treatments for TBI victims in order to help them recover back to even a modicum of functionality, they've swept most of these victims under a rug, often throwing them out the back door (e.g. arbitrarily terminating treatment at all) to run their families into bankruptcy.
Here in San Francisco, most of the TBI treatment programs are managed through non-profits or charity programs connected to hospitals. There is nothing coming from the US Army even though many, many of the patients are veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, yeah, it doesn't surprise me at all that they'd rather not talk about it and give their spin-control allies a head start, if the conversation is imminent.
I had to actually look up The Platinum Rule and how it differentiated from The Golden Rule. It seems to be a step towards the rule of reciprocity plus don't try dodge the rule of reciprocity with technicalities.
If you're being technically reciprocal but not reciprocal in spirit, you're not being reciprocal.
There are some problems, but they may require sophisticated solutions.
There are new social hazards on the internet that haven't been a problem (or much of a problem) in real-life settings.
There should, for example, be some kind of remedy for doxxing someone, essentially posting This person is a real jerk. Someone should kill him and burn his house down.
Our non-internet examples are fewer, though fresh in my mind is the example of Dr. George Tiller, who performed late-term abortions for patients with extreme cases was gunned down (in church!) by Scott Roeder after a lengthy smear campaign by Bill O'Reilly.
Now, anyone who wants someone attacked or even lynched simply needs to post someone's alleged crimes and their contact information to start a harassment campaign. Zoey Quinn was the unfortunate recipient of such a campaign after (what I think was) a nasty break-up, the details of which were changing and dubious.
But she's a game designer, not a war profiteer or a puppy euthanizer or a DC Lobbyist. Definitely not someone who should have to go into hiding and adapt disguises and secondary identities like a mob informant on the witness stand.
Doxxing has some clear implications of incitement, and I don't have any clear ideas how to address the issue since it can be done anonymously and without enough evidence to secure legal recourse. ...And I personally don't want to give up the benefits of the open internet, even if I'm personally put at risk for being doxxed.
But yes, while I think freedom of speech and anonymity should be largely protected on the internet, there are a few exceptions for which I'd like to see some protections.
A fact is an event in nature. X person observed Y event at T time. It's the data.
The facts your proposing are at best conclusions, and ones that require citations so that those who might be interested can look at the actual facts and see if the conclusions are logically drawn from them.
Regarding controversial subjects, such as alchol use by the public and firearm ownership, there are a whole lot of dubious facts, and a whole lot more dubious conclusions.
So I would be extremely wary of what you claim to be beyond debate or scrutiny.
Our ballistics models are pretty damn accurate. Not perfect, but pretty good.
The Anonymous Coward in question brought up guns only as follows:
The anti-gunners have been dying to go after gun manufacturers for decades. MADD would love nothing more than to go after the beer/wine/liquor mfgs. We have a long, disgraceful history of going after 3rd parties for the actions of an individual. Mostly because the 3rd parties have the money, not because they did anything illegal or even immoral.
One example in a list (albeit a short list) of people who go after third parties over grievances, which is exactly why Section 230 is an important regulation to keep, as it protects webhosts from the wrath incurred by its user-content.
Mr. Mason Wheeler pinged off the gun ball, saying Guns have no other use than as a weapon. He also commented that booze isn't useful either (or rather that he doesn't approve of its current use in society). I'll give Mr. Wheeler the benefit of the doubt for now, and figure he was simply arguing that guns and booze aren't necessarily the best examples. But in his statement When you're creating and selling a product that has no other use than something immoral and harmful... that's a strong implication that he believes that guns and alcoholic beverages are immoral and harmful.
Gwiz challenged this, and the derailment of the thread onto guns and gun regulation (and booze along the way) became the new topic. So I'd say Mason Wheeler derailed the thread. Not Anonymous Coward.
And I, in the meantime, will continue to point at our society's history (and that of every other society) in erring on the side of presuming things are immoral and harmful when they're not, (and therefore suggesting they should be proscribed). And so long as our society continues to be that way, I'll scrutinize such judgements with skepticism, even when, as with booze and firearms, there are some obvious potentials for hazards.
The cognitive mechanism by which we freak out over guns, is the same one by which we freak out over gays...or for that matter (returning to the original subject) porn, dissent and rap music quotes on the internet that people might think should be censored.
PS: The reason that old canard keeps resurfacing might actually be that it raises valid points.
Human beings live in a certain amount of risk by owning or being around things, including other people. And it's inappropriate to attack guns as a source of human woe and not attack all the countless other hazards that are about as dangerous as guns, or even more so.
And the Columbine incident lent some solid examples of how displacing responsibility away from acting individuals creates efforts to encroach on our liberties. I remember the game Doom and the artist Marilyn Mansion both being singled out because Harris liked both.
Guns are highly controversial, and both sides have been willing to falsify data, or more exactly, filter data so that the selected subset yields a result that pushes their agenda.
There's very little bathtub data, for instance or swimming pool data, or nature trail data, or parachute data, because we don't collect data regarding most human activities. We only collect data regarding guns, and that data is collected by organizations that push specific agendas regarding guns. There's no impartial data from impartial sources.
And because there is so many false claims, or dubious claims, there's no way for us to ensure that a real study you do is valid and presents reproducible results.
Contrast the Guttmacher Institute, an organization whose soul purpose is to produce accurate statistics regarding sexuality, birth control usage, natality and abortion. They present no investment in any position regarding any of these subjects.
No such organization exists regarding gun ownership, usage, crime, etc. And there are no sources to look at comparable hazards in American life (e.g. knives, cars, swimming pools, vending machines and so on.)
But plenty of people are willing to push towards agenda with bad data or no data, as is the case with iOS gay friendly Emojis in Russia.
So yes, we have no valid means to differentiate your bias against guns from someone's bias against Led Zeppelin or more recently the Grand Theft Auto video game series.
And that said, I appreciate retaining my liberties when I can, thank you.
don't steal and don't kill are corollaries of reciprocity which has been something of an instinct since we walked on four legs. Since teamwork and organization are force multipliers, an inclination to regard each other with reciprocal respect has helped many a species survive.
The biblical god also said wipe them out to the last infant and calf, and considering modern proscriptions of genocide, I find the bible a dubious source of morality.
The recent Kim Davis affair isn't helping the case for biblical authority, either.
Did you see the bit recently about the Russian administration deciding that iOS gay-friendly emojis are dangerous to children?
More evidence that people cannot tell what is dangerous or not. More accurately people can't tell what is dangerous enough that it should be regulated.
I don't trust my government to decide what things I cannot have. And if they take away guns -- even those nasty guns with special bullets that only kill good people and healthy puppies -- they'll try to take away other things, including booze and pot and video games and books that talk about questionable subjects. And rock and roll that might or might not be Satanic.
I especially don't trust you, Mason because you clearly (from my perspective) have an irrational bias against guns.
People need to be allowed access to all these things, including the stuff you might consider dangerous. And then People need to be held accountable for when they do bad things with them. The acting persons who did bad things, not his weapons of choice.