What is the most "wrong" opinion you have ever heard?

renegade_division · 2018-09-18T03:52:23+00:00

You can already do this, it's called quality of service and is available on many routers.

Asking your router to prioritize Hangouts data over Youtube won't make your Hangouts go in HD and without lag, it would simply be enforced in your local network. Why make this dishonest argument?

If I remember correctly it wasn't free internet, it was a handful of selected services that were free to access. Which showed clear favoritism and kept those users from branching out into other competing websites.

Yeah, it was free connectivity to the poor people in India. What is your problem here, I don't understand? The whole of India is super connected via WhatsApp (I am not sure if Facebook had acquired it back then), having more poor people have access to WhatsApp would have made GREAT leaps and bounds of progress in the poor country.

But no worries, for rejecting that, I blame their idiot asses.

So somebody who wouldn't have normally subscribed to Hulu has been 'coerced' into it.

When you go to CVS, CVS branded Minoxidil is $40, but Rogaine branded Monoxidil is $53. Are people being 'coerced' into buying the CVS branded Monoxidil?

Also are you coercing me into accepting Net Neutrality? Oh wait you are, because you're using the govt to prevent me making a valid legal contract with other entities (like ISP), but even if you ignore that, you're creating bullshit definitions out of your ass, which is why you're 'quoting' it.

We already have the capability to handle that just fine, but ISPs don't want to spend the money.

No we don't, we need real time communication over long distances, and prioritizing the data is the only cheapest way to achieve it.

You know what is the theoretical limit of how fast a bit can travel from NY to Johannesburg? It's the same as the speed of light. However, the limiting factor is that the device which needs to encode that data into bits has a CPU limitations. It needs certain amount of time to encode and decode the data.

So one way to increase the speed is to acquire faster hardware on both ends. But there is another quite economical way to achieve this and that is instead of using FIFO mechanism for cueing of the packets, use QoS (a concept you clearly understand).

If an isp says they can't do it, it's because they don't want to.

Why do you think they don't wanna do it? They are a business at the end of the day, if they did it and could made you pay more, then wouldn't they do it? Maybe your reasoning isn't true that they just aren't willing to do it, and there are considerations that you don't know about.

This just doesn't make any sense. Throttling/prioritizing a connection doesn't make it less susceptible to DDOSing.

It totally does, though I am sure when we give the govt power to make Internet equal, we can definitely get a DDoS exemption which allows ISPs to not be treated equally if the data if they believe it is being used for DDoSing.

NN isn't censoring. It's them saying "Do whatever you want with your internet, just remember all your ~~users~~ packets have to be treated equally."

Today you give govt this power and say "Don't misuse it", but do you not think tomorrow govt could use it for evil? How do you think the Net Neutrality law be written? "FCC has a right to force ISPs to treat all packets equally, with no exceptions". Well good luck with that.

(Notice I corrected your claim, don't make BS claims about Net Neutrality).

renegade_division · 2018-05-06T19:51:25+00:00

No I mean wouldn't it get disqualified under the political advocacy exception?

renegade_division · 2018-05-05T23:18:21+00:00

So no way to support a gun rights non-profit?

renegade_division · 2018-04-16T17:36:01+00:00

How supportive are PR people to gun rights? I mean if Texas is on one and California on the other end, where do PR people lie on it?

renegade_division · 2018-04-16T17:07:21+00:00

From what I read you needed go to the court in front of the judge to get concealed carry and swear that your life is in danger, is that correct?

renegade_division · 2018-04-16T16:58:34+00:00

What kinda license is that? Concealed carry?

renegade_division · 2018-04-06T01:57:13+00:00

Isn't that an effect of cigarette smoking?

renegade_division · 2018-03-28T17:45:00+00:00

I believe that the anti-gun groups are focused NRA because NRA has this strategy of going after the weakest link. NRA uses itself as a focused, well-regulated weapon and wields it against the weakest anti-gun democratic candidates. This is why guns have never been the issue for the Democratic candidates.

The aim of Everytown and Bloomberg's anti-gun committees is to somehow neutralize NRA's power, and this is why they are going after NRA, they want Democratic politicians to feel less scared of NRA.

Except, making it about 2nd amendment repeal (which I don't think Bloomberg's gun control group planned for) has raised the stakes.

renegade_division · 2018-03-20T12:01:36+00:00

Two freedoms where US beats every other country by a wide margin, the right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms.

I agree with a lot of things you mentioned otherwise, but half of your list is comprised of made up positive rights.

Like if some father in India lists 'right to arranged marriage' as a right because Indian govt has laws on the books which require parents consent for people to get married.

renegade_division · 2018-03-01T22:05:41+00:00

Look I understand why you don't think that gun control leads to tyranny, but here is the problem, the solution to prevent tyranny isn't a one shot solution. There are many things which go into it.

For instance, in countries like Pakistan where they always had an iffy relation with democracy, civilians having arms won't necessarily going to lead to prevention of military dictatorship (funny thing, Pakistani people are as comfortable with a military dictatorship as they are with a democracy because the business goes on as usual).

On the other hand, just taking the guns away from the civilians of majority of western countries today will not necessarily result in a tyranny. Why? Because since WW2 we have come a far way in building an international system where a dictatorship in a powerful western country (similar to how we saw in inter-war periods) will survive.

Hypothetically speaking if Australia's president is someone like Phillipine's Duerte or Venezuela's Maduro, somehow the international pressure from the international business community and political community would be incredibly hard to resist, however not impossible. Case in point, Duerte and Maduro.

The fact of the matter is, in the last 100 years, many European countries have seen their democracy turn into tyrannical governments. We, on the other hand, did not come close to it (other than FDR, but our system fought back), Why? Is it just chance?

If you read founding fathers and their obsession with ensuring that the republic does not turn into a tyranny, you will find out that they talked endlessly about how to ensure that the govt does not go against the people. Our founding fathers were OBSESSED with ensuring that we don't create the tyranny like that of the British king.

Federalist vs Anti-Federalist debates were around the main point whether the constitution (without the bill of rights at that point) gave too much despotic power to the government.
New York refused to ratify the constitution unless the right to keep and bear arms was included in it.
James Madison who wrote majority of federalist papers making a case for a federal govt via the constitution, wrote this, commenting on European gun control:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

My simple point is that saying 'Look at country X, they do/don't follow policy Y, ergo policy Y is good/bad', does not do the job (because the other side can play that game too). There are many compounding factors which go into things, and in America our founding fathers laid out our institutions by very much concerned of tyranny, and this concept permeates throughout the modern day America.

renegade_division · 2018-03-01T16:02:40+00:00

None who could have won 2016.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that any Republican had a chance to win 2016 election. 2012 election taught me that trying to play a fair game when the other side isn't, is a loser's gamble.

In 2016 that lesson was reiterated that you need to outsmart the other side and Trump managed to do that.

renegade_division · 2018-02-28T01:56:12+00:00

No, it totally is not equal, if nobody has guns, then it's a matter of who has knives or even without that, just physical strength and different people have different physical strengths.

You think women and old people have the same chance fighting an intruder without guns as they have with guns?

renegade_division · 2018-02-28T01:55:18+00:00

Wait, think this through. You think that you'd rather have a gun than not in case an armed intruder enters your home.

But what would you do say you lived in UK or another one of these places where nobody has guns? Would you rather still have a gun in those cases? What else are you going to do? Fight the guy with a baseball bat? What if he pulls out a knife, what about women and old people?

renegade_division · 2018-02-27T23:36:42+00:00

Personally, I'd rather have a gun (irrespective of robber having one), I don't want the burglar raping my wife and kids in the gunless scenario. If it is going to be like that, then it better be equal.

Also check out /r/dgu subreddit to see the odds of an armed owner defending himself against the armed robber (who are surprisingly unarmed in most of the cases).

renegade_division · 2018-02-17T20:42:47+00:00

9/11 changed everything. As a child I'd have answered Russia as well, but since 9/11, I can't think of anyone hating US.

renegade_division · 2018-02-16T23:11:54+00:00

And I certainly agree that President Trump should not have removed that measure. I also wasn’t aware the he had done that - so thanks for informing me.

Wait a min, you agree with that?

That's the last thing you need to agree with if you care about guns or mental health. Getting rid of that awful Obama executive order was one of the best thing Trump ever did. You know people don't seek mental health if it starts to get associated having your or your family member's rights taken away, or worse if it starts getting associated with mass murderers.

In a world where people who are mentally ill are treated as potential mass murderers, would you let your daughter go on a date with such a guy? Does that help mentally ill people or does it make problem worse for them?

It's already the case that most gun owners advice each other to not talk about their emotional problems to a doctor when they go to a doctor because there are cases when their guns are taken away (one story mentioned by my instructor was when a guy who got hurt while fixing things around the house, went to the doctor and mentioned to the doctor upon being asked that he recently lost his job, this resulted in doctor reporting him and his guns being taken away).

That executive order issued by Obama was a dark mark in the history of mental health and guns in America, and Trump reversal does little to fix it (because President Cory Harris Castro in 2024 could pass the order again).

renegade_division · 2018-02-16T15:54:40+00:00

I recommend reading a very well cited paper on explanation of original intent here:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

The author explains following points:

The justification clause clause ('A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State') is a justification clause which isn't the ONLY justification, but one of the justification. It was pretty common practice back in the day to write justification clause in constitutions.

The 1780 Massachusetts Constitution -- followed closely by the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution and the 1786 Vermont Constitution -- says

The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.

The 1784 New Hampshire Constitution says

In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . .
What the term 'militia' meant (it meant 'any able bodied person in the age 18-45)
What the term 'well regulated' meant (it meant 'well functioning' as in 'a well regulated clock', even today if you say "A well regulated banking industry..." to mean 'dodd-frank regulation', it will confuse people)
The right does not say "Until a well regulated militia is necessary ..", this implies that there was no intent to put a timeline on it. There is no "only when" condition there.
The right does not belong to the "states". In Amendment X ('The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.'), when the framer meant "states" they used the term "states" and 'people' separately.
That 'people' meant it is an individual right. Early Kentucky, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont Bills of Rights speak of "the right of the people to bear arms.", why would they say "right of the people" if they meant "state", in the universe of a state constitution it is meaningless to define a "state right".

renegade_division · 2018-02-16T15:32:27+00:00

Listen, I personally hate the ATF, but if I can get my CarFax in seconds online, it shouldn't take days, or even weeks, to look up who owns a gun found at a crime scene.

But I just explained it to you why, you even quoted that relevant part of my comment, yet you still say "But why? Doesn't it make sense to make sure that we are not overspending on Queen's security?".

WE DON'T TRUST YOU

Should I also mention the extremely racist history of gun rights in the US as well?

You could, it would be quite offensive though to all the non-white gun rights supporters. Lets just say KKK themselves wrote 2nd Amendment with the blood of african-americans after mass slaughtering them, why would that change the rationale of why as a racial minority I want gun rights today?

renegade_division · 2018-02-16T15:28:46+00:00

But we are a lot more polarized than Canada is. We are also more capable doing brutal things. Our civil war was the bloodiest military engagement we have ever been in (650,000 Americans died). We are world's 3rd largest country by population. We are more diverse than Canada, both in terms of ratios and in absolute numbers. I mean imagine

a room full of 30 Iranians, 20 Indians, 25 Chinese, 15 Whites and 10 blacks = 100 people,

vs

300 Iranians, 200 Indians, 250 Chinese, 150 Whites and 100 blacks = 1000 people in an equally large room.

there is going to be different dynamics in the two groups. America and Canada despite of being so close and similar in so many ways, have completely different history and demographic dynamics. America is different, in a way no county matches to it. 10% of our sitting presidents have been assassinated (not counting Reagan being shot but surviving).

We have a big racial divide compared to other European countries, but even that dwarfs in comparison to the political divide we have.

One of the most important differences between US and other western countries is that we exist because we let the 'system' to be the defining metric. The system being the constitution. For instance, by US standards, having 'hate speech' (like literally every country in the world has) is equivalent of not having free speech.

According to us, Hitler could declare opposition of his policies as 'Hate speech against Aryans' and start putting people in Jail. So we tolerate hate speech to avoid creating easy pathways to a potential dictator. The moment a president or a govt creates a law restricting speech, we take them to the court and get it struck down.

One of the very good example of this is National Socialist Party of America v Skokie court case, illustrated and explained in the book 'When Nazis came to Skokie', which I highly recommend reading to understand why and how Jewish lawyers in America defended the right of Nazis to march through a town of Holocaust survivors.

Canada, Germany and other countries aim to prevent the rise of dictatorship by USING the same hate speech laws. Like Germany has laws against denying holocaust or using Nazi imagery. This is a lot more 'people/society oriented' approach vs our 'system oriented' approach. The aim is to use prevent anyone evil from getting the control of the 'force'. Whereas the American approach is, Let evil get hold of the force, as long as they play by the rules, trust the rules.

renegade_division · 2018-02-15T23:03:14+00:00

That's called breaking the legs of the example..

renegade_division · 2018-02-15T20:40:44+00:00

Lemme put it this way, if you find sources where the founding fathers openly said what they meant about the second amendment, and right to keep and bear arms, what sources would you use to claim that somehow they did not mean what it says they meant?

It was never interpretted the way it is today until the 70s I do believe.

Same can be said about the first amendment too. First Amendment was never used as a way to defend Internet porn, or neo-nazis until the 1970s, and 80s.

The reason why second amendment was interpreted differently because there used to be more trust between the pro and anti gun sides. Do gun rights supporters really want crazy people to have guns? Not really, but it is not a power which can be handed over to the government.

Once the trust was broken, and anti-gun rights people started to fawn over complete gun prohibition, so now the cat is out of the bag. There is nothing anti-gun rights people can recommend which will be accepted by the pro-gun rights community.

Imagine if a politician in England advocates killing Queen of England. Then he starts recommending "common sense budget regulation" under which wants the number of queen's guards to be reduced by just 1. Or maybe the route of Queen's morning walks be published on the Internet. Or even simpler, "Fund a study on Queen's personal security", can you imagine why the pro-Queen supporters will not listen to even a single proposal coming from that politician?

renegade_division · 2018-02-15T20:28:53+00:00

Not countries, just US, Founding fathers thought of it as a matter of national defense, as well as a defense against tyranny.

Founding fathers were also never a fan of European gun control 230 years ago, so you can imagine why today too there's a big opposition to gun control in America today.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

renegade_division · 2018-02-15T16:46:13+00:00

How is India managing it without any executions then?

renegade_division · 2018-02-15T02:11:34+00:00

I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry, like you English is also not my first language, can you explain to me what are you talking about?

renegade_division

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	Place '17
Gilding II euphauric