I'm sorry! Was that an attack? I figured if you are into telling others how they should spend their money or live their lives or be taxed by government in freedom-restricting ways, then that maybe you would be intellectually honest and not be bothered if I TOLD YOU what to do with some element of your life. How is that an ATTACK?
A latte is $3.65. If you made your own cup at home, you would spend $0.05. Starbucks is 73x. I believe you need to stop buying lattes from Starbucks and start making your own coffee at home like I do. Stop being such an elitist. Get to work.
If you are fabulously wealthy that you can [have a latte each morning], let alone [buy it at Starbucks], you can afford [an additional tax on your latte for the peasant that got the coffee beans.]
But the counter protesters are free to organize their own speaker engagement. They ARE allowed to speak about their position. My point was that there is lack of civility in discourse. What's the point of interrupting another speaker? Let every speaker speak their mind, in an orderly manner, without interruption.
The problem is that some groups have defined "intolerance of intolerance" to be somewhat good, so then discourse stops.
"The community is better at self defense than the individual."
- Not sure what this means. My own experience comes from someone abusing someone at a bus. Nobody intervenes. Just a bunch of sheep until I have to say "Stop it". So while the community may be better defending, they don't, and it is up to the individual to secure his / her own protection.
If my family was murdered while I was out, then by definition I cannot defend them. The law system will take care of it presumably, but that is not "defense", it is post-fact "justice."
Unclear what your mutually destruction comment was.
The country was founded on the notion that all you have is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So I rather defend myself.
If you want to “happily pay for” your own protection, you should hire your own bodyguard. I don’t want my taxes to go to your protection just because you want the government to solve all your problems.
I think most hackers are concerned with public safety. The problem is subgroups of hackers differ on how to achieve it. Some hackers want to remove the rights of people not involved in a crime (like, me) to defend themselves and protect their families (interestingly, they also complain of clear plastic backpacks for kids in school, which I agree is equally ineffective in stopping crime). Other hackers want to preserve the right to defend themselves and their families from crime.
Therefore the debate is not about hacking. It’s about a different view of the world.
Therefore, there are other forums better suited for the debate, which really has nothing to do with hacking (with some exceptions).
You must be a lawyer. Dude, can we keep the laws simple? I mean, I wish I could sue manufacturers of jeans (hate seeing someone’s crack when they bend), I hate toothpicks (super useful but sometimes I hurt my gums), I hate carpets (sometimes the static electricity creates a spark that hurts my hand when I attempt to open a metal door), and I hate brooms (they never quite get all the dust gathered). I also would like to sue the makers of Fortnite as I was one of the last two and a glitch froze my gun for two seconds, which allowed my opponent an unfair advantage which created pain and suffering for me.
https://onlinestore.smucker.com/display_product.cfm?prod_id=...
$8.99 180 cups $0.04994 per cup