|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Feb 21, 2018 13:06:44 GMT
Yes and I have Canadian cousins who complain about it so I'm not lying Sunshine. As for that poll, of course people are stupid enough to believe that they're getting free healthcare (spoiler warning!! They're not) so they would support it but do you honestly believe that medical care in the UK and Canada is better than it is in the US. As for the studies, clearly they're bullshit and they're viewing it through a lense of how many people are covered. That’s priceless. You have three cousins that complain about the healthcare system in their country. Wow. I didn’t think three people could speak for the whole country and you could get a whole analysis done on just their opinions. I know 100’s of people here that disagree. I also have polls to prove it, unlike you sunshine. You don’t have anything to back up what you’re saying. And yes, I do. It feels great walking out of a surgery or the doctors office and not paying a dime. I had a surgery a few months ago that would’ve costed me 50k in America. It feels great to not have over 40,000 people dying every year in my country because they don’t have coverage. It feels great to not have medical debt as our #1 reason for bankruptcy. Again, virtually every study from HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS agree with me. The studies analyze a multitude of things, not just people that are covered. You’d know that if you read the articles that I linked for you, which you clearly didn’t. Calling them bullshit is not an argument. Yes I will call them bullshit especially since my aunt died in that dumb cunt country of yours because it took 9 months just to get a fucking cat scan. Now are you gonna insult my cousins again.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Feb 21, 2018 14:26:17 GMT
Against. I'm not for doing nothing about it, but people comparing their gun-less countries to the U.S. sounds silly to me, it's like they think they can tell us how to create a more ideal society. Also... before the internet-sensitive attacks me... (or her rather), this is probably the only time I've ever agreed with Tomi Lahren: "@tomilahren Can the Left let the families grieve for even 24 hours before they push their anti-gun and anti-gunowner agenda? My goodness. This isn't about a gun it's about another lunatic" It has much less to do with guns than it has to do with certain luney people. I think people-regulating is one of the most underrated talking points in the media. The fact that it's never talked, yet guns always get the blame makes me wonder why people ignore the real source of the issue. You're misframing the argument when you say: when the real argument would be more along the lines of Germany for instance used to be pretty much the most militaristic country in the world, now it's one of the least militaristic countries. Now Germany is for a number of reasons not the best comparison to the US (though better than most european countries) but you can observe similar things in even other english speaking countries. The UK used to be intensely militaristic aswell and the best comparison is probably Australia which through gun control introduced in the 90's achieved a sharp decline in gun-related violence and has - similarly to the US - large rural areas. And besides that of course it's about guns. Killing a person with your bare hands is pretty darn hard, killing a person with a knife isn't all too easy either, killing a person with a gun on the other hand is pointing and pulling the trigger. If lunatic people are less likely to have guns, they are less likely to be able to kill anyone. How could anyone dispute that? You might make the assumption that a lunatic person will always find a way to kill people. That's only true for a few select people. For most people, lunatic or not, the barrier of entry to kill someone is still extremely relevant. It takes a hell of a lot of will power and confidence to commit a public mass murder with a knife (which I heavily doubt most of these mass murders possess) and even then it's much, much less effective than a gun and you do not have an easy way out.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,678
Likes: 2,111
|
Post by cherry68 on Feb 21, 2018 14:50:05 GMT
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,621
Likes: 1,785
|
Post by dazed on Feb 21, 2018 16:51:41 GMT
That’s priceless. You have three cousins that complain about the healthcare system in their country. Wow. I didn’t think three people could speak for the whole country and you could get a whole analysis done on just their opinions. I know 100’s of people here that disagree. I also have polls to prove it, unlike you sunshine. You don’t have anything to back up what you’re saying. And yes, I do. It feels great walking out of a surgery or the doctors office and not paying a dime. I had a surgery a few months ago that would’ve costed me 50k in America. It feels great to not have over 40,000 people dying every year in my country because they don’t have coverage. It feels great to not have medical debt as our #1 reason for bankruptcy. Again, virtually every study from HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS agree with me. The studies analyze a multitude of things, not just people that are covered. You’d know that if you read the articles that I linked for you, which you clearly didn’t. Calling them bullshit is not an argument. Yes I will call them bullshit especially since my aunt died in that dumb cunt country of yours because it took 9 months just to get a fucking cat scan. Now are you gonna insult my cousins again. Sorry to hear that about your Aunt. As for insulting your cousins, I’m not sure where I said anything to insult them. All I did was restate what their opinions were. There is a way to get a CT scan here way sooner though. You don’t need to wait for 9-12 months. I’ve done it with my MRI a couple of times. You need to pay around 500-600 dollars and you’ll get a private one within just 1 or 2 days, and they have the results in just 1 day after the scan. Here’s a website that goes into detail about private CT scans: www.canadadiagnostics.ca/private-preventive-health-scans.aspxAlthough I know your Aunts death is personal to you so it’s more emotional, you can’t let one story ruin your perception of a country. Look at the story in America just a couple of weeks ago where a guy won the lottery, went to the doctor since he finally had enough money, and found out he had stage 4 cancer and then died just a month later. The wait times here for surgery, emergency rooms, etc (not sure if MRI and CT scans would fall under here) are all based on need. My teacher had the same back issue that I had, but he literally couldn’t walk, so he got into surgery within a week. I had to wait around 2 months, which I was able to do. During my back injury, if I lost control of my bladder and wasn’t able to pass anything, they would’ve flown me out right after hearing that and would’ve performed an emergency surgery. So Canada has a system of wait time being based on need.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Feb 21, 2018 17:19:33 GMT
No, I never said that, I said they were the most effective tool and the easiest. I do not see any evidence that mass shootings would be subsidized by mass (intentional) car killings. As for cars: Cars kill thousands of people each year (in the US about 2 times as much as guns), mostly due to negligence and in the end a dead person is a dead person, which is also why I'm in favor of fully automated travel and ideally largely car free inner cities. Up until then, traffic legilsation is potentially one of the fields were you can save the most lives. One of the reasons driving in Germany is more safe than in the US despite us not having a speed limit on the Autobahn is because using the different lanes correctly actually matters here. If you could introduce better traffic regulation in the US it could potentially save more lives than gun regulation even. Potentially even adopting the german rule of no speed limits on highways (not in all areas) could be good for the US because of the wide distances one can travel in the US. The most deadly aspect in traffic is not necesarilly speed but unpredictability. And if people who want to drive immensely fast get the left-most lane to do that, it's so, so much safer than if they zig-zag through traffic. Here is a related statistical map of traffic accidents per 100,000 inhabitants: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Road_traffic_accidents_world_map_-_Death_-_WHO2012.svg
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,849
Likes: 2,366
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Feb 21, 2018 17:47:04 GMT
Against. I'm not for doing nothing about it, but people comparing their gun-less countries to the U.S. sounds silly to me, it's like they think they can tell us how to create a more ideal society. Also... before the internet-sensitive attacks me... (or her rather), this is probably the only time I've ever agreed with Tomi Lahren: "@tomilahren Can the Left let the families grieve for even 24 hours before they push their anti-gun and anti-gunowner agenda? My goodness. This isn't about a gun it's about another lunatic" It has much less to do with guns than it has to do with certain luney people. I think people-regulating is one of the most underrated talking points in the media. The fact that it's never talked, yet guns always get the blame makes me wonder why people ignore the real source of the issue. You're misframing the argument when you say: when the real argument would be more along the lines of Germany for instance used to be pretty much the most militaristic country in the world, now it's one of the least militaristic countries. Now Germany is for a number of reasons not the best comparison to the US (though better than most european countries) but you can observe similar things in even other english speaking countries. The UK used to be intensely militaristic aswell and the best comparison is probably Australia which through gun control introduced in the 90's achieved a sharp decline in gun-related violence and has - similarly to the US - large rural areas. And besides that of course it's about guns. Killing a person with your bare hands is pretty darn hard, killing a person with a knife isn't all too easy either, killing a person with a gun on the other hand is pointing and pulling the trigger. If lunatic people are less likely to have guns, they are less likely to be able to kill anyone. How could anyone dispute that? You might make the assumption that a lunatic person will always find a way to kill people. That's only true for a few select people. For most people, lunatic or not, the barrier of entry to kill someone is still extremely relevant. It takes a hell of a lot of will power and confidence to commit a public mass murder with a knife (which I heavily doubt most of these mass murders possess) and even then it's much, much less effective than a gun and you do not have an easy way out. Well, Germany and the UK may not be the military powers they used to be, but we're talking about private ownership of guns, which has always been a U.S. paranoia. Depicted by the family headed by a few manly brutes protecting their farm from threats from another family from the outside. This isn't very common now though, and I can see an argument that society should reflect our current climate of living. I think theoretically the U.S. can become like Australia - but it's not as easy here. Of course all the liberal media has to do is hire a bunch of hacks to type on a typewriter to tell us all the ways other countries are more ideal than the U.S. This type of thing has been going on for a couple of decades now. It's really disheartening, it's not often like they imagine so patently. And their suggestions are totally one-sided, always ignoring that living in other countries can be worse than living in the U.S. I'm sure lots of people have an opinion about those 'better' countries. For instance, I've lived in Canada for 1/6 of my life and have found job search more difficult there. There are some things better in Canada, but overall I prefer the living conditions in the U.S. I know it's one person's opinion, but it's just I'm not so one-sided. For instance, in Europe you have those terrorists with their killer vans. What is your opinion on that? I'm not saying those school shooters here are going to turn into those European terrorists, I'm just saying.... what's your opinion about the violence in those so-called 'superior' countries? Guns is definitely a component. It's a key component, and the absence of guns does prevent those acts from being carried out. But there are other components too: budget for education, security in schools, infrastructural improvement, media portrayal of the shootings, school bullying, and of course.... the shooters themselves. But again, liberals are going to make it all about guns (and Trump maybe), but that's really narrowing the curriculum. Also, you must know that most schools have absolutely no security at all. I went to the University of Texas, who has the biggest school budget of any educational institution in the nation, and their own police force consistently patrols the campus much like the police in the Vegas strip. But even there I don't see how they can respond fast enough to a shooter before he kills a few people, even up to 10. There are lots of students walking around the campus, and you can kill 10 just like that in an instant. And even the police can't guard the whole campus - which is several acres large. And that applies to many campuses. An elementary and high school is often significantly smaller than a university, but the best they'll do is have 1 cop for every 100 students, and anything better than that they won't be willing to do - that's just how things are. But I'm a huge proponent of higher security and I think we need people to realize that security is a high deterrent. A school with elite security is not going to be an easy target for shooters. But the other way to look at it is that they'll pick another spot and it'll be bad for those guys, which is exactly why this is so difficult, and it seems that we can't have a society without guns, we can't have a society without lunatics, and we can't have a society with perfect protection. I hate to say it, but the best solution is to just be hopeful that those guys will go away. Just like the age of terror won't last forever, and hopefully is already on the decline, I don't think the age of school shootings will last forever either. I know that's like wishing communism to go away (doing little if anything to stop it), but it..... kinda did.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,678
Likes: 2,111
|
Post by cherry68 on Feb 21, 2018 18:10:05 GMT
No, I never said that, I said they were the most effective tool and the easiest. I do not see any evidence that mass shootings would be subsidized by mass (intentional) car killings. As for cars: Cars kill thousands of people each year (in the US about 2 times as much as guns), mostly due to negligence and in the end a dead person is a dead person, which is also why I'm in favor of fully automated travel and ideally largely car free inner cities. Up until then, traffic legilsation is potentially one of the fields were you can save the most lives. One of the reasons driving in Germany is more safe than in the US despite us not having a speed limit on the Autobahn is because using the different lanes correctly actually matters here. If you could introduce better traffic regulation in the US it could potentially save more lives than gun regulation even. Potentially even adopting the german rule of no speed limits on highways (not in all areas) could be good for the US because of the wide distances one can travel in the US. The most deadly aspect in traffic is not necesarilly speed but unpredictability. And if people who want to drive immensely fast get the left-most lane to do that, it's so, so much safer than if they zig-zag through traffic. Here is a related statistical map of traffic accidents per 100,000 inhabitants: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Road_traffic_accidents_world_map_-_Death_-_WHO2012.svgI don't think you can fully have the control of a car running at high speed. Even if when the driver isn't a drunk idiot or someone typing emails on his phone. And let's be honest, the great majority of roads aren't suitable for automated driving, not in Europe at least. About mass murders, it's pretty clear that in Europe vans and trucks substituted guns in the last years.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Feb 21, 2018 19:18:28 GMT
For. It shouldn't even be a question IMO.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Feb 21, 2018 19:49:47 GMT
I think theoretically the U.S. can become like Australia - but it's not as easy here. Of course all the liberal media has to do is hire a bunch of hacks to type on a typewriter to tell us all the ways other countries are more ideal than the U.S. This type of thing has been going on for a couple of decades now. It's really disheartening, it's not often like they imagine so patently. And their suggestions are totally one-sided, always ignoring that living in other countries can be worse than living in the U.S. I'm sure lots of people have an opinion about those 'better' countries. For instance, I've lived in Canada for 1/6 of my life and have found job search more difficult there. There are some things better in Canada, but overall I prefer the living conditions in the U.S. I know it's one person's opinion, but it's just I'm not so one-sided. Of course I'm not an American, so I can't judge American discourse in the same way an American could but to me it sounds like your perception is quite selective. In Germany for instance there is also positive US legislation that is highlighted like taxation being linked to citizenship. Usually what is good already is not talked about as much because it doesn't need improvement which could lead to you perceiving people to always portray other countries as better than the US. I think such a line of argumentation, highlighting the weak-spots that need improvement the most by looking at countries that perform better in those areas is perfectly valid. From the opposite, saying the US is better than other countries you're not going to get any improvements. My opinion is that Europe is statistically a lot safer than the US. What terrorists want is to create fear. Statisticly to die of terror is less likely than dying in a kitchen accident or beign struck by lightning or most other weird reasons to die you could think of. Unlike gun violence in the US terror is not a systemic problem in Europe but individual incidents. In Germany since I was born 18 people died in terrorist attacks, 4 of them were the attackers and 11 died in the same incident in Berlin. That anyone, terrorist or not, uses his car to rush into another human or a group of humans is in the very end not preventable (unless cars that people can drive themselves are banned). You can make it less likely by adding security to large public gatherings, you can coordinate police work more effectively (in the EU and in the individual countries) but the potential for senseless killing will always remain to some degree. The terrorists who used "the van method" were btw both not Europeans as you call them but Africans from Tunisia. Further my opinion on the terror attacks is that the US is more at fault for them than any European country with their interventionism in the middle east (though many european countries, especially the UK and France do also have a not good record on this). The wars in Afghanistan, the Iraq war, the arming of syrian rebels were all measures that sow seeds for terror in the muslim world. The very easiest thing one could do to make terror less likely would be to stop this bullshit. And school shooters can be terrorists. The Florida guy was allegedly associated with a paramilitary white supremacist group which aims to create a white ethno state in Flordia. Now to me it does not look like this was the reason or intent here or that there was a larger plan, it looks like a typical school shooting, but that school shootings could be terrorist attacks is completely within probable bounds. Schools would generally speaking be a not unlikely target for terrorists (regardless of which group they belong to) as large groups are gathered there and people are especially sensible about their kids (so a school attack on kids creates more panic than an attack on adults).
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,678
Likes: 2,111
|
Post by cherry68 on Feb 21, 2018 20:00:24 GMT
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Feb 21, 2018 20:16:17 GMT
No, I never said that, I said they were the most effective tool and the easiest. I do not see any evidence that mass shootings would be subsidized by mass (intentional) car killings. As for cars: Cars kill thousands of people each year (in the US about 2 times as much as guns), mostly due to negligence and in the end a dead person is a dead person, which is also why I'm in favor of fully automated travel and ideally largely car free inner cities. Up until then, traffic legilsation is potentially one of the fields were you can save the most lives. One of the reasons driving in Germany is more safe than in the US despite us not having a speed limit on the Autobahn is because using the different lanes correctly actually matters here. If you could introduce better traffic regulation in the US it could potentially save more lives than gun regulation even. Potentially even adopting the german rule of no speed limits on highways (not in all areas) could be good for the US because of the wide distances one can travel in the US. The most deadly aspect in traffic is not necesarilly speed but unpredictability. And if people who want to drive immensely fast get the left-most lane to do that, it's so, so much safer than if they zig-zag through traffic. Here is a related statistical map of traffic accidents per 100,000 inhabitants: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Road_traffic_accidents_world_map_-_Death_-_WHO2012.svgI don't think you can fully have the control of a car running at high speed. Even if when the driver isn't a drunk idiot or someone typing emails on his phone. And let's be honest, the great majority of roads aren't suitable for automated driving, not in Europe at least. I don't think so either. I'm not a fan of driving extremely fast but the Autobahn is safer than all other roads in Germany. Statisticly if you die in a traffic incident, you're the least likely to die on Autobahn as only about 12 % of traffic related deaths are on Autobahn which is because Autobahn is so well regulated (if you only look at traffic incidents with harm to people, the number goes all the way down to 6 %). You're the most likely to die on roads in the countrysides including "Kraftfahrstraßen" (4 lanes separated in the middle, max speed 120 km/h, sometimes slower, short lanes for entry), I think they are about the equal of your freeways/expresways. I can confirm this from personal experience. My first lesson of driving on a "Kraftfahrstraße" was a nightmare, some crazy dude pulled in right in front of me and the lanes for leaving and entry can often be short. Autobahn afterwards was one of the most relaxed driving lessons I ever had. So even for a beginner there was a clear difference. Driving on Autobahn is comparatively easy because all you do is driving ahead in a straight line and overtake trucks in front of you. The types of roads where I've seen people do the most bullshit is within cities, the types of roads where I've seen people do the most dangerous bullshit is on rural roads with just 2 lanes. The max speed there is 100 km/h (if no sign says otherwise) and I always have people overtaking me, even when driving max speed. If people are not careful when overtaking there it is often fatal. What excactly would the roads require for automated driving? So how many people died in Europe because of truck violence excactly and how many died in the US from gun violence?
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,678
Likes: 2,111
|
Post by cherry68 on Feb 21, 2018 20:30:19 GMT
tobias Automated driving needs the white stripes on the sides of the road and in the middle, to separate the two ways. European small roads don't have those. We have too many ancient towns and mountain roads.
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,849
Likes: 2,366
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Feb 21, 2018 20:32:31 GMT
I'm not sure what you mean here, but I think that berating the U.S. based on how much better Australia is... is stupid. I'm sure there are many people who once they've lived in both would choose to live in the U.S. There are advantages here. In terms of nationwide violence, the U.S. probably has those countries topped, but if we're gonna apply your logic..... you could probably avoid most of the violence here or drastically reduce your chances of catching gun violence if you live a certain way as to avoid them. School shootings are unpredictable, I agree. As are car accidents. You might not be able to avoid those. But school shootings don't kill many people per year just like terrorists don't kill many people in Europe if I were to apply your logic. And car accidents...... the U.S. is not to be singled out for being a leader in car accident deaths, since many countries have them topped in that (though I guess you could say Europe has one of the lowest rates). Germany has .0000428 car accident deaths per population. The U.S. has .000105 deaths. And while I believe Australia was successful at eradicating gun violence just like that, there are probably other reasons why people wouldn't choose to live in Australia over the U.S. Dunno how you can say that, since the terror acts are committed primarily in Europe. They're retaliating against America by carrying out terror attacks in Europe? Well I don't know about that. I'll need to further look into that. I already gave you the German car accident rate vs. the U.S. It's a little better... a little. LMAO. You're saying terror attacks in Europe is individual, not systematic? It has nothing to do with the sheer number of people your continent allows in from the Middle East and Africa? The only reason there is more terrorist attacks in Europe is because of that. It has much less to do with "retaliation." I find that very hard to believe. But while you may be correct, I'll need to further look into this, but I think I've heard of a few attacks in Germany just recently. But you could be right, as I don't know this. I'm a full proponent of self driving cars. They can't come soon enough. Don't see why that matters. There were a few shooters in the U.S. not from here either. The fact is, you have your type of violence over there. We have our type of violence over here.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Feb 21, 2018 20:45:17 GMT
cherry68Are you sure about that? As far as I know self-driving cars merely use a combination of optic, sonic & radar sensors to determine their enviroment and then the cloud for more long-term planning. The white stripes do not sound like something a self-driving car would necesarilly need to keep on the proper lane. Maybe some models that were created in the past required that but I think it could be technologically bypassed. And besides that adding some white stripes to roads that don't have them wouldn't be thaaaaat big a deal, especially not as they also help humans.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,678
Likes: 2,111
|
Post by cherry68 on Feb 21, 2018 21:02:34 GMT
cherry68Are you sure about that? As far as I know self-driving cars merely use a combination of optic, sonic & radar sensors to determine their enviroment and then the cloud for more long-term planning. The white stripes do not sound like something a self-driving car would necesarilly need to keep on the proper lane. Maybe some models that were created in the past required that but I think it could be technologically bypassed. And besides that adding some white stripes to roads that don't have them wouldn't be thaaaaat big a deal, especially not as they also help humans. You live in a flat big city, huh? Most roads here are to narrow to paint a central line. And even lateral ones tbh. How can a car guess where the road ends?
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Feb 21, 2018 21:51:58 GMT
Dunno how you can say that, since the terror acts are committed primarily in Europe. They're retaliating against America by carrying out terror attacks in Europe? It's not retaliation I'm talking about. It's destabilized countries beeing a breeding ground for global terrorism. It's not a little better. It's a lot better. You're more than twice as likely to die in traffic in the US. It also varies between states. New York has a similar rate to Germany (slightly higher), in Mississippi it's about 6 times as likely to die in traffic as it is in Germany. States do have different traffic legislation aswell. You can check stats here: www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview18 dead people in more than 20 years among over 80 million is definitely not a systemic issue whatever you say. Apart from that I never said it was retaliation (it isn't) and I'm for significantly stricter border regulations (that is among others shutting the mediteranian route down) and a different approach to asylum that is based on local help. At least one thing we can agree upon. Not really. The US has terror attacks too. You had a truck-terror attack killing 8 people in New York just like 5 months ago (October 31st 2017) and another terror attack with a vehicle in Charlottesville another 3 months before that. Statisticly speaking - mainly because of 9/11 - there are far more US terror victims than terror victims in the EU, at least in the last 30 years. The deadliest terror attack in modern Germany is still Black September in the 70's with 17 dead. And globally speaking only an incremental percentage of terror is in western Europe (Western Europe because Russia has a lot of terrorism and Ukraine, potentially also Belarus and other countries in the realm, though not the countries in the EU). The country with the most deaths due to terrorism today is Iraq (and a lot of blame for that lies with the US but also with the UK and the others that participated in the Iraq war). www.independent.co.uk/news/world/global-terrorism-victims-western-europe-victims-less-1-per-cent-islamist-domestic-a7910981.html
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Feb 21, 2018 21:58:18 GMT
cherry68 Are you sure about that? As far as I know self-driving cars merely use a combination of optic, sonic & radar sensors to determine their enviroment and then the cloud for more long-term planning. The white stripes do not sound like something a self-driving car would necesarilly need to keep on the proper lane. Maybe some models that were created in the past required that but I think it could be technologically bypassed. And besides that adding some white stripes to roads that don't have them wouldn't be thaaaaat big a deal, especially not as they also help humans. You live in a flat big city, huh? Most roads here are to narrow to paint a central line. And even lateral ones tbh. How can a car guess where the road ends? No, I do live in a small village in fact with about 2.000 inhabitants and a lot of driving for me was in the countryside. I would assume a car would be able to guess where the road ends by other input from the sensors. And if there isn't enough space for a line in the middle, surely lines in the sides would be enough for the car to grasp the surroundings properly as it would only have to keep on the right side of the road. I agree that some very narrow roads might be suboptimal for self-driving cars but in theory I think it would still be possible to programm them to drive there well, though it might take longer than making them fit for more streamlined roads.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,678
Likes: 2,111
|
Post by cherry68 on Feb 21, 2018 22:02:44 GMT
tobias You speak a lot about the irrelevance of terrorism in Germany. Other European countries weren't as lucky. I still remember the 70s in Italy, when you could be shot only because you bought a certain newspaper. The conflicts with independence movements in Spain or Ireland, or Libyan attack to the airplane in Lockerbie caused lots of deaths too.
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,849
Likes: 2,366
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Feb 21, 2018 22:14:59 GMT
Got it.
Ok if you do the math like that.... I agree with you, that's twice more. But based on the stats, I don't see car accidents being that proportionally a larger issue in the U.S. as in Germany. I agree that Mississippi has to be one of my least favorite places to drive, mostly because of how the roads are. I go to Mississippi once and it's an issue with my rental car. I go to Alabama once, and I minimally crashed my rental car. (nothing serious), but I've been driving in California (where I live), and never had even one.
I don't see how your continent allowing massive entry from the middle east and Africa, and them carrying out terror attacks isn't a systematic issue, but ok. I do mean your continent, btw, not your country.
I know, but it seems like we're hearing way more terror attacks lately from Europe. Or at least a greater number of individual attacks, even if the victims were 1 or 2 or 3 people. I know that those attacks in Europe has alarmed the world, lots of people aren't comfortable riding a subway in Europe, riding on a plane with a European trajectory, and aren't comfortable attending major festivals in the center of the town in Europe. Not sure that the U.S. carries that type of stigma for a foreign traveller.
Ok, got it. But let's agree to disagree overall. I wouldn't feel any more safe in Europe than in the U.S. I know violence happens in both places, a little bit more/less here and there, but nothing exponentially as a cause of extreme concern. I do realize that I'm American, and you're European, but lets just say we're both inclined to feel safer with the conditions we're used to. And of course I don't hang around gangsters.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Feb 21, 2018 23:16:42 GMT
I know, but it seems like we're hearing way more terror attacks lately from Europe. Or at least a greater number of individual attacks, even if the victims were 1 or 2 or 3 people. I know that those attacks in Europe has alarmed the world, lots of people aren't comfortable riding a subway in Europe, riding on a plane with a European trajectory, and aren't comfortable attending major festivals in the center of the town in Europe. Not sure that the U.S. carries that type of stigma for a foreign traveller. Oh trust me, there are enough Europeans that wouldn't feel safe going to the US. In both cases I think the fear is largely unfounded (as long as you don't dive headlong into the criminal scene). Note that this only applies for tourism. Permanently living in the US, I believe is due to a worse social security net (especially health care) significantly less safe than in most of Europe. In general globally the number of reported terror incidents peaked sometime in the early '10s, as far as I know it has generally been in decline since then though. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Terrorist_incidents_worldwide.svg
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Feb 21, 2018 23:18:10 GMT
Yes I will call them bullshit especially since my aunt died in that dumb cunt country of yours because it took 9 months just to get a fucking cat scan. Now are you gonna insult my cousins again. Sorry to hear that about your Aunt. As for insulting your cousins, I’m not sure where I said anything to insult them. All I did was restate what their opinions were. There is a way to get a CT scan here way sooner though. You don’t need to wait for 9-12 months. I’ve done it with my MRI a couple of times. You need to pay around 500-600 dollars and you’ll get a private one within just 1 or 2 days, and they have the results in just 1 day after the scan. Here’s a website that goes into detail about private CT scans: www.canadadiagnostics.ca/private-preventive-health-scans.aspxAlthough I know your Aunts death is personal to you so it’s more emotional, you can’t let one story ruin your perception of a country. Look at the story in America just a couple of weeks ago where a guy won the lottery, went to the doctor since he finally had enough money, and found out he had stage 4 cancer and then died just a month later. The wait times here for surgery, emergency rooms, etc (not sure if MRI and CT scans would fall under here) are all based on need. My teacher had the same back issue that I had, but he literally couldn’t walk, so he got into surgery within a week. I had to wait around 2 months, which I was able to do. During my back injury, if I lost control of my bladder and wasn’t able to pass anything, they would’ve flown me out right after hearing that and would’ve performed an emergency surgery. So Canada has a system of wait time being based on need. That's a stupid way of doing things. They let people get sicker and sicker until they treat them. All because of a shortage you get in socialised healthcare.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,621
Likes: 1,785
|
Post by dazed on Feb 22, 2018 0:26:46 GMT
Sorry to hear that about your Aunt. As for insulting your cousins, I’m not sure where I said anything to insult them. All I did was restate what their opinions were. There is a way to get a CT scan here way sooner though. You don’t need to wait for 9-12 months. I’ve done it with my MRI a couple of times. You need to pay around 500-600 dollars and you’ll get a private one within just 1 or 2 days, and they have the results in just 1 day after the scan. Here’s a website that goes into detail about private CT scans: www.canadadiagnostics.ca/private-preventive-health-scans.aspxAlthough I know your Aunts death is personal to you so it’s more emotional, you can’t let one story ruin your perception of a country. Look at the story in America just a couple of weeks ago where a guy won the lottery, went to the doctor since he finally had enough money, and found out he had stage 4 cancer and then died just a month later. The wait times here for surgery, emergency rooms, etc (not sure if MRI and CT scans would fall under here) are all based on need. My teacher had the same back issue that I had, but he literally couldn’t walk, so he got into surgery within a week. I had to wait around 2 months, which I was able to do. During my back injury, if I lost control of my bladder and wasn’t able to pass anything, they would’ve flown me out right after hearing that and would’ve performed an emergency surgery. So Canada has a system of wait time being based on need. That's a stupid way of doing things. They let people get sicker and sicker until they treat them. All because of a shortage you get in socialised healthcare. Not really. It makes sense for someone that needs the surgery to get in before someone that's able to wait. If they'll get sicker in that time frame and it's severe, they won't be waiting long enough to get to that point. I'm sure the average person that can wait, will wait rather than paying 50,000 dollars out of their pocket like Americans do. We pay less for our healthcare and we're happier with it when compared to Americans. You're not providing any substance in what you have to say now that I've dismissed anything that you've tried to argue for. So why keep arguing?
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Feb 22, 2018 18:42:40 GMT
That's a stupid way of doing things. They let people get sicker and sicker until they treat them. All because of a shortage you get in socialised healthcare. Not really. It makes sense for someone that needs the surgery to get in before someone that's able to wait. If they'll get sicker in that time frame and it's severe, they won't be waiting long enough to get to that point. I'm sure the average person that can wait, will wait rather than paying 50,000 dollars out of their pocket like Americans do. We pay less for our healthcare and we're happier with it when compared to Americans. You're not providing any substance in what you have to say now that I've dismissed anything that you've tried to argue for. So why keep arguing? Oh no no Skippy, you've just advocated people getting sicker and sicker until they're treated. You're severely overestimating your position. Also this is a gun control thread, we should stop.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,621
Likes: 1,785
|
Post by dazed on Feb 22, 2018 21:56:18 GMT
Not really. It makes sense for someone that needs the surgery to get in before someone that's able to wait. If they'll get sicker in that time frame and it's severe, they won't be waiting long enough to get to that point. I'm sure the average person that can wait, will wait rather than paying 50,000 dollars out of their pocket like Americans do. We pay less for our healthcare and we're happier with it when compared to Americans. You're not providing any substance in what you have to say now that I've dismissed anything that you've tried to argue for. So why keep arguing? Oh no no Skippy, you've just advocated people getting sicker and sicker until they're treated. You're severely overestimating your position. Also this is a gun control thread, we should stop. No I didn’t? And I’m the one who’s severely overestimating my position? Seriously? I just linked you a whole bunch of studies (which are non partisan by the way) and polls that support my position and debunk your arguments. You haven’t showed any evidence to support your position because you don’t have any. Saying studies and polls are bullshit isn’t an argument. You’re right, we should stop because this isn’t going anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Feb 23, 2018 16:56:54 GMT
This thread is very divided on this issue, but for a second, let's make the focus only about making it more difficult for mentally ill people to legally purchase guns, which to me is a perfectly rational position to have. Is there anyone in this thread who is opposed to this? Anyone?
|
|