Exactly! It felt like “Eureka!” when I read this article for the first time.

deleted by creator

Meanwhile we can’t pay for uBlock Origin because he won’t let us: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Why-don’t-you-accept-donations%3F.

What gymnastics? Have you caught even a glimpse of the topsy-turvy state of the USA the past few years? Anything normal requires mental gymnastics.

Weird that ICE didn’t shoot him on account of concealing a deadly weapon.

I accept your correction, but in my defence, since the USA is ran by the unaccountable Epstein et al, I’d say that my comment still applies. If not even more so.

Wait until you find out drones are used for patrols too.

Outside this makes total sense. Inside, not at all. And I say this as a quadcopter pilot myself.

I bet it’s gonna be Tolkien Black.

“Its not perfect, therefore no effort should be expended toward any possible harm reduction”

Non sequitur fallacy and then some. Not only didn’t I say “it’s not perfect”, I said it’s completely stupid such as what’s depicted in the illustration above. I also didn’t say “no effort should be expended”, in fact, my first sentence proves the contrary: most efforts should be concentrated on the root causes. And the last sentence quotes the article, symptomatic measures should be prevention, e.g., patrol. Money towards these drones can be spent far more wisely.

1. The point is that the terrifying systemic problem of school shooters should be tackled at its root causes, not merely suppressing symptoms. It’s beyond absurd that schools in the US have become institutions of normalized violence.
2. Going to another room and closing the door renders any drone “not very effective…” School shooters have nothing left to lose. These drones are an extremely expensive yet stupid way of defusing such people. From the article:

The drones can remain airborne for about eight minutes on a single battery charge
I know the US is plagued by obesity, but I’m pretty sure the average shooter can outrun a drone for more than 8 minutes inside a building. What a bad joke. This is simply about signing contract deals for weapons manufacturers because everything about this screams poor taste.
However, not everyone is convinced the drones are the right approach.

That includes Tony Montalto, whose 14-year-old daughter Gina Montalto was among the 17 people killed in the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland, Florida. He told WPTV: “These drones aren’t patrolling – they just pop up when needed. So that’s part of the problem. We need to focus on the prevention piece rather than the reaction piece.”

Just like fighting gym leader Brock with Charmander.

They keep pushing for chat control but can’t even check usernames. On top of that conclude it with witch hunt madness. Brandon Klayme deserves a significant financial compensation and a profuse public apology.

They’re synonyms.

is a non-sequitur argument.

I think I have to disagree, but I understand where you’re coming from, hence the “arguably”. Believing something is a sin indeed doesn’t equal taking someone’s freedom to do so. However, his revulsion was uttered with such conviction and certain facial expressions that it signaled if he had free rein, he would not tolerate homosexuality at all, i.e., would prohibit it.

freedom of religion is a requirement for freedom from religion.

“freedom of religion brainwashing is a requirement for freedom from religion brainwashing.”

A spurious but innocuous sounding argument.

At least is quite the understatement. F#%$#$% chaos machine failings at 95%.

💭 To consider antireligion instead of atheism
“The harm of religion is historically evident whereas the presence or absence of gods is not. Ultimately, the continued existence of religion is predicated on the indoctrination of children and suppression of rational thought. Therefore I am against religion but not necessarily against the idea of gods. For all we know gods are computer scientists and we are in their video game.” ―https://www.arscyni.cc/file/antireligion.html

[…] Not only is religion vague, it is dishonest. Homosexuality for instance. While conversing with a Muslim former colleague A, I noticed that even though the religious say they supposedly want tolerance and acceptance for all, do they actually believe it?

Q: “Do you have a problem with homosexuality?”

A: “Look. They can do whatever they want, but it’s abnormal you see?”

Q: “In the strict definition of the word abnormal I agree, i.e., heterosexuality is a lot more prevalent than homosexuality, making the latter rare—“abnormal”. But I don’t consider it wrong. Do you? Do you consider it a sin even though it harms no one?”

Long silence…

A: “Yes, I consider it a sin.”

Q: “Okay then.”

Christopher Hitchens was right, religion does poison everything. Even though colleague A said people are free to do whatever they please, following it up with “homosexuality is a sin” arguably exposes his feigned tolerance. […]

Satisfying proportions, makes me want to walk up the edge. Nice.

Wallpaper material. Love it.