You are making a lot of assumptions based on nothing.
"Every Nation gets the government it deserves"
This is not clearly demonstrated by history.
"If you won't participate to help resolve the problem then you become a cause of the problem."
This is assuming that the people you're talking to aren't participating. How can you know this?
"People like you refuse to accept responsibility, people like you think doing nothing but running your trap is a cure, people like you add to the burden of society while refusing to contribute to it!"
Everything here is assuming behaviors and attitudes that you can't possibly know are true.
In the bigger picture, by the way, if your goal is as you imply (which would mean that you & I are in agreement on this) and you want to encourage active participation in government, you may want to rethink your tactic.
Berating and accusing people will only harden the attitudes of those people who actually do fit your perception. It works toward the opposite of the result you want.
"I know plenty of women who like to go to gay venues so that they don't get aggravated by wannabe PUA assholes all night"
Me too. In fact, when my wife goes out for a "girl's night on the town", a local gay nightclub is their destination of choice for precisely this reason. They don't get hit on so much, and they are treated with a great deal more respect all around.
Re: Re: Re: God's Not Dead is actually really good
Disclaimer: I am not Christian, I am ignostic. That's not a typo, I didn't mean to say "agnostic".
"those aren't the 'true' christians."
Ah, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, just in a weird form.
Here's the thing -- when it comes to whether someone is or is not an adherent to a religion, there is no litmus test. Religion is a matter of personal belief. If someone says they are a Christian (or any other religion), they are. End of story.
You could perhaps argue that they are imperfectly understanding or implementing the dogma linked to their religion, but that's the sort of debate that only people who are part of the religion find meaningful. It's a very different thing than saying they aren't "true" whatever.
Re: Re: Re: I doubt it is going to be a minor nuisance
According to the story, the homeless are using communal tablets, not their own personal smartphones.
That the poor in the US are better off than the poor in some other countries in meaningless. People in the US still die every day as a direct result of being poor. Every winter in my area, there are homeless people who literally die of exposure on the city streets. Homeless people in the US die of starvation. Homeless people (as well as poor people who have homes) in the US die due to lack of medical care.
Not sure why you bring up Obama, though. He doesn't factor into this at all.
Agreed. I've not been shy about calling it tyranny at all. What I find most interesting is that I have never had anyone argue against that assertion -- even when I've made it to people who I would have thought would be genetically allergic to the idea (cops, legislators, etc.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can this incident be cited...
About rural hospitals -- I actually agree with you. My comment was hyperbolic snark (although has an element of truth).
I nearly took a job (I'm a software engineer) at a regional hospital in what passed for the "metropolitan center" of the area. It was a town with a population a little north of 5,000. They offered me an extremely generous salary and offered to employ my wife as well. Everyone there seemed pretty great, and when we asked around town for their impression of the hospital, we got nothing but positive comments.
I ended up turning the job down, but it was very, very tempting.
Here's her bio from the Chamber of Digital Commerce website:
Perianne Boring founded the Chamber of Digital Commerce in July 2014, and currently serves as President overseeing the Chamber’s operations, government affairs and public policy initiatives. She previously worked in network broadcast news and as a Forbes contributor. She began her career as a legislative analyst in the US House of Representatives, advising on finance, economics, tax and healthcare policy.
She's a news broadcaster and lobbyist, not a technology person. She may be unaware that technologists tend to care more about technical correctness than messaging.
I can see that. Remind me to never go to a rural hospital!
There's another aspect I didn't mention: the police can get really abusive in their requests. The hospital staff is supposed to direct any and all police requests to a designated person to handle. My wife was that person for a year or so, and often came off her shift with stories about some cop or another who was literally screaming in her face in an attempt to coerce her into giving in to his demands.
Ah, that could be. My comments are based on my wife's experience working in a major metropolitan hospital.
She says that every single day, the police come in and try to talk nurses and doctors into things that are technically allowed for the police but not for health care providers. These are usually requests for medical records, but often are requests for invasive searches.
The hospital staff almost always refuses to go along for the reasons I said above. The hospital itself is so concerned about liability that on the rare occasions that a doctor or nurse gives in to police demands, they are fired. From the hospital's point of view, this is a potentially existential issue.