MrOwnPut

Interesting, I feel the same to you.

1. You can't remove all guns, you can only remove the legal ones.

2. If you had the ability to remove illegal guns from society you would have had the ability to remove the criminals in the first place.

3. Even if you did remove the millions of guns and prevent manufacturing / imports (even though you can't for drugs) you don't know for certain murders will go down. These people are ruthless. Jumping people with machetes is always an option. It may be worse since guns are an equalizer and let people defend themselves. You're a lot less likely to run up on someone when you know they have a gun.

It's also a lot harder to defend yourself without a gun.

Especially if you're physically weaker.

So everyone who is currently killing each other with guns will see their enemy gang in the street and not decide to slash them because they are too lazy? They only wanted to shoot them?

It's the type of gangs in America, it's not about "gang membership" or whatever metric you're trying to throw out.

They shank people with tooth brushes in prison. MS-13 decapitates people with axes. It's the gangs, not the guns.

Chicago and many cities in America would be safer with more legal guns, less gangsters.

so you think these gangs are just going to not kill people anymore because all guns magically disappeared?

you do know when they don't have access to guns in prison they then shank people with whatever they can sharpen, right?

what about a van? and there's been plenty of mass stabbings.

focus on getting rid of gangs, your gun murder rate will plummet.

noone seems to care about the 20-60 shootings per day in gun-free Chicago.

all of those criminals don't seem to respect the gun laws...

the only thing that happens when you restrict guns in the US is you take away the ability for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

Could you add a hashbang for Brave search?

It's very clear what it means, it means the lifetime of how long you think this product is going to last. It's a decision as a consumer you make.

When I purchased the Plex lifetime license 6 years ago, I asked myself how many years to break even vs if I purchased yearly. The answer was 2.5 years.

I also asked myself if Plex was going to last at least that long, and I thought they were, and they did, and I wanted to support them.

Could you elaborate? My Plex lifetime license has been very valuable to me and has already saved me money.

Asking someone to go Google something is not a debate, it just shows your ignorance on the topic.

Also throwing out random statements and saying "trust me bro, Google it" is not a valid way to debate or source your statements.

If you're so confident in your ability to find the answer, by all means provide it.

No it means you are trying to get them to clarify their stance and explain their reasoning so you can understand them better.

I see, awesome. Thanks for the clarification!

The problem is when there is not adequate "correction" or the correction is not agreed upon, or even stated. Many times the question is ignored entirely under the assumption it is in bad faith.

You may have just not convinced the person that your believed truth trumps their believed truth.

It requires communication, which pretty much never involves assuming a question is bad. If it's reiterated, then respond with your same point in more detail and ask for a response to that.

They seem to have Flutter support but the lack of React Native support is non starter for me.

No my dude, I referenced the term socratic method.

Many people use the method everyday without comparing themselves to the man personally.

When you use the scientific method, you aren't comparing yourself to Francis Bacon are you?

Also, you seemed to have veered off topic, please reply to the last sentence of my last reply if you wish to continue talking to me.

The same reason we bury other trash instead of incinerating it.

It's better to be in the Earth than in the atmosphere.

No it's called the socratic method. You've ignored the meat of my question and now try to label it as bad faith I assume with that term.

I was asking about the scale of lithium mining if it were to replace nat. gas and coal for energy production. Not just EVs. Have you seen a study of the projected impact of that?

I don't know these answers, that's why I'd like more people that were knowledgable to talk about the entire carbon cycle of wind turbines with actual numbers and sources.

> But anyone can listen in and tell when valid answers are being ignored.

While I do agree that does happen I've also seen many people try to mind read others and assume bad faith when they were in fact asking genuine questions, and it's happened to me as well (it's actually happening now in a thread below). It's harder to read others than you think.

Sometimes people are so dug into their camp they assume bad faith because the questions threaten them and cause a fight/flight reaction instead of simply responding to the substance.

A lot of the times, it's just the socratic method being applied to you, but if you think the questions contain misinformation... the best way to fight misinformation, is with more information.

But aren't the scales of production/output disproportionate as well?

What would the impact of mining lithium be if it did need to meet the needs that oil and gas is currently serving?

Comparing the effects of lithium mining vs nat. gas fracking on the land at the expected full scale needs an unbiased approach. Not to mention the supply and humanitarian issues.

I've seen tons of articles about impacts of fossil fuel production on land.

I just don't see why one mineral being pulled out of the ground seems taboo to talk about because it's potential propaganda, could it not go the other way as well with that logic?

I mean, if we scaled any higher and did replace fossil fuels, would mining lithium/rare metals and the lifespan of batteries/PV panels be worse than mining nat. gas?

These are serious questions that would benefit from a serious calculation.

So when are those issues acceptable to talk about without assuming they are propaganda?

I do support alternative sources of energy, but what you've listed are serious sticking points that should be discussed and addressed, not just handwaving it away as propaganda.

It's similar to ignoring nuclear as a base load, ignoring that we decreased emissions by replacing coal with nat. gas, ignoring that train derailments are worse than pipelines, etc.

It would be better to openly talk about these things instead of just saying things like "oh well it's only so many tons of waste, or that much child labor, it must be some oil shill trying to trick us".

> signature strikes a lasting legacy of his presidency

drone strikes?

> Instead, he processed a stop payment request through his credit card company

However, the article doesn't say when he did the stop payment request or if it went through.

If it did go through the article is wrong that he is "waiting on a refund" because the payment would have been reversed so there's nothing to refund.

IMO the people that throw around phrases like narcissist, main character syndrome, lack of empathy, etc. usually know nothing about the person they are attempting to diagnose and simply have differing perspectives that they can't see eye to eye on.

It's the Reddit hive mind mentality.

Doesn't start entirely organic but it ends up being nearly 100% organic hate for certain topics.

Useful idiots start parroting hit campaigns and it becomes "common knowledge" for them which they repeat whenever the topic comes up, creating more useful idiots.

See any "controversial" topic here. Eich/Brave, Elon/Tesla, Facebook/React. It's all the same talking points, some being years old, most being purely emotional/subjective.

If you respond back they'll just call you a paid shill or troll, but if you don't respond back the echo chamber goes unchallenged and makes more useful idiots to parrot those same talking points to restart the cycle.

Funny you mention Nickleback, it was the first time I noticed the hive mind hate. Personally they are a really good band and everyone I know (outside of Reddit) likes them and knows pretty much every single one of their songs, wonder who Chad Kroeger pissed off.

That's a personal question that I can't answer for you.

I do, but I assume you don't. That's fine, carry on.

He's stated multiple times he bought it because of freedom of speech.

Whether or not he suspected NGOs were involved in the censorship on the governments behalf is uncertain, but the goal of a global communication medium that embraced freedom of speech were his main stated goals.

Government programs are inefficient.

Also NASA is a former of it's self, funding wise.

I was just asking you to clarify your morals and reasoning.