Noliving's past comments

  • 0

    Noliving

    Lessee... 1.5 billion Windows users... representing 14% ( one-seventh ) of computing devices... meaning the other six sevenths ( 9 billion ) are using smartphones and tablets...1.5 billion plus 9 billion equals... 10.5 bilion! No?

    Isn't it obvious each person can have multiple devices, for example a person could have a windows laptop(from work), have a personal android phone and an ios tablet..

    Posted in: Microsoft exec sees autumn release for Windows 10

  • -1

    Noliving

    Someone hasn't been paying their dues to the Yakuza.

    Posted in: Police crack down on bar, adult establishment touts during year-end

  • 0

    Noliving

    He should at least face discipline by the NYPD for using a banned restraining technique.

    Posted in: U.S. report fuels race furor over police killings

  • 0

    Noliving

    Thank god this is ending but I seriously have to wonder what was the quality control when doing this mass harvesting of organs. I have to assume it wasn't very good.

    Posted in: China to end use of prisoners' organs for transplants next month

  • -1

    Noliving

    It is not a good comparison because I can sit and look out a window on the world, or listen to good music with a glass of wine (or cup of sake) or good whisky in my hand -- and can't even begin to imagine of replacing it with a gun.

    Yes it is a good comparison and it is a better comparison than yours. You never did answer my questions, what is a better comparison, the number of times someone gets behind the wheel or the number of miles driven between accidents or motor vehicle related deaths? The number of times a pilot gets behind the controls of an airplane or the number of hours spent flying/number of miles flown between aircraft accidents or aircraft related deaths?

    You can look out a windows on the world and listen to good music and target shoot all at the same time.

    Posted in: 12-year-old boy with fake gun dies after shot by Ohio officer

  • -1

    Noliving

    Just pathetic, Noliving. You should be comparing each bullet to the number of alcohol molecules per sip. Glad to see you reaching so far.

    Lol OK Yabits, your argument was to compare the number of times people handle alcohol vs the number of times they handle a firearm. That is not a very good comparison, for example what is a better comparison when measuring pilots or drivers, the number of times they get behind the controls/wheel or the number of hours they spend driving/flying and or the number of miles traveled between accidents?

    Here let me demonstrate this to you, lets say you have a driver that travels from Minneapolis to Dallas using the interstate and only stopping to refuel the tank, most vehicles get anywhere between 400-600 miles per tank, trip distance is around 1000-1200 miles so they get behind the let say 3 times at most, now compare it to someone who has a 10 mile commute each way, so they travel 20 miles a day and they get behind the wheel twice and lets say you do that for 5 days. That comes out to 100 miles traveled and getting behind the wheel 10 times.

    Which is a better determination of how safe driving is? The number of miles traveled or the number of times getting behind the wheel?

    Lets say you have a pilot that has a route from Tokyo to Honolulu, just over 3,800 miles or 8-9 hours of flying vs a pilot that flies from from Minneapolis to Dallas, than two days later flies from Dallas to Minneapolis, so the pilot has traveled around 2200 miles and spent about 5 hours in the air and gone behind the controls of an airplane twice.

    Which one is a better determination? The number of times the pilot went behind the controls or the number of miles flown/hours spent flying?

    A better comparison is the number of Alcoholic drinks consumed for each death and the number of bullets discharged for each death. Just like how a better comparison for traffic deaths is the number of miles traveled vs the number of times they get behind the wheel.

    Apples and oranges. It's a false equivalency. You seem to be trying to say that because alcohol is legal, and kids die from alcohol related incidents, guns should be legal. What? That makes absolutely no sense. It's simply an attempt to distract from the subject at hand.

    No it is not apples and oranges and not it is not a false equivalency. They are both premature deaths and they are both needless deaths, the products are both used primarily for recreational purposes.

    What I am saying Strangerland is that if you are going to act sanctimonious and try to shame gun owners than it would be in your best interests to not condone a recreational product or a recreational behavior that kills just as many if not more children and adults on a per capita basis than firearms. Pointing out someone's hypocrisy and that their argument of "it's for the children" is not genuine and that their motivation for wanting to prohibit guns is rather they just simply don't approve of it therefore no one should be allowed to own this product or engage in this behavior is not an attempt to distract from the subject at hand.

    The fact is that every single gun owner in America is partially responsible for the death of this boy. Gun owners in America have decided that they are ok with kids dying, as the price to pay for their 'right' to own a gun. This has nothing to do with alcohol, and the legality (or illegality) of alcohol does not justify gun ownership whatsoever.

    Yes they do just like how every person who condones alcohol and consumes alcohol is partially responsible for the deaths of children that die due to Alcohol. You condone recreational consumption of Alcohol do you not? Does not Alcohol kill more children on a per capita basis in the USA than firearms do on a per capita basis?

    If the answer is yes to both, which it is, than who are you to shame gun owners and who are you to claim you are better than gun owners morally and finally who are you say that gun owners should give up their guns when you yourself are not willing to give up Alcohol?

    The legality of Alcohol for recreational consumption does justify gun ownership if they are both primarily owned and used for recreational purposes which they are. If you can say that the number of children dying for recreational consumption of Alcohol is acceptable than recreational gun owners can say the same for guns.

    Posted in: 12-year-old boy with fake gun dies after shot by Ohio officer

  • -2

    Noliving

    I cannot think of a scenario where the cops are called, and end up killing a 12-year-old kid for pulling out a beer bottle.

    It doesn't matter if you can or can't because it is irrelevant how the child dies, what matters is if the death is pre-mature and needless. A child that dies from Alcohol is just as premature and needless to society as a gun death.

    This not a matter of numbers, it is a matter of senselessness. It is sickly stupid to keep bringing up alcohol. The satanic logic you are using is this: "OK, so you get to keep the alcohol; and we get to keep guns."

    Yes it is partly a matter of numbers considering the numbers of children that die by gun deaths is used to try and severely restrict guns or prohibit them. Could you please explain again why a child's death caused by Alcohol is more necessary to society than a child dying by a firearm? I keep bringing up the number because of your, Strangerland, Cleo, and Smithinjapan sanctimonious attitude and using the numbers of gun deaths. You try to shame gun owners and yet you deliberately ignore and or refuse to stop engaging/condoning in any number of recreational activities that kill just as many people, especially children, than firearms.

    Satanic logic please, your logic is that you simply don't approve of guns therefore no one should be allowed to have them or use them for recreational reasons. So yes that so called Satanic logic is my logic, it recognizes that people have different interests and different dislikes and in order to be fair to everyone if we say this recreational activity kills this many people and that number is unacceptable than every other recreational activity that kills this many people or more and has nearly as many participants and or engaged in just as frequently is also unacceptable. If you want to call that Satanic than so be it but in my humble opinion I would say it is a pragmatic logic.

    No matter what the statistics are, a kid who brings a bottle of wine to a park and shares a few slugs with his friends is vastly different than a kid who brings a gun and starts firing slugs at them.

    No kidding, just like how a kid who takes a gun with him to a gun range and shares the gun with his friend under adult supervision at the range is vastly different than one who opens fire on them. Just like how a young teenage male who brings a bottle(s) of wine on a date so he can get his date intoxicated to the point he can molest/rape her/him and possibly kill her/him is vastly different than one who brings a bottle of wine to just enjoy a romantic date.

    With the indulgence of the moderators, I believe I can articulate the perverse stupidity of your continually bringing up alcohol, in hopes that you'll finally see the light: the key metric is incidents per use. Most people handle an alcoholic beverage infinitely more times in a given period of time than they handle a firearm.

    Conjecture. Love to see the evidence of legal gun ownership vs legal consumption of Alcohol. Just so you know the average american age 15 and older consumes the equivalent of 31 glasses of wine or 9.4 litres each year. In an average year the USA civilian market will sell 7-10 billion rounds of ammo to civilians. However though ammo sales for the past six years have exceeded 10 billion+ rounds. Here is a better comparison the number of bullets fired vs the number of alcoholic beverages consumed.

    A lot of people who are depressed and under tremendous stress will reach for a drink. Imagine what it would do to your stats if they reached for a gun instead? (As all too many do already...) Or if people handled guns as often as they handled an alcoholic beverage.

    More conjecture/presumption, here Yabits lets do this comparison. The amount of bullets fired vs the number of drinks consumed. You know as well as I do that most people will go to a gun range and fire hundreds if not 1,000+ bullets each time they go to the range. Do people who go to a bar consume hundreds of drinks or thousands of drinks or even hundreds of fluid ounces in one sitting?

    Also according to the suicide rates of the USA the USA has basically the same suicide rate as the UK, and well lets see here Japan has a higher suicide rate than the combined homicide and suicide rate of the USA. In fact the USA suicide rate is basically average when compared to the rest of the developed world. So we don't really have to imagine seeing as we already have the stats.

    If alcohol was as remotely as dangerous as a firearm, storage procedures for beer and wine within a home would be vastly different.

    It is, the statistics bare that out plain as day, more children and adults die in developed countries from Alcohol on a per capita basis than guns kill children and adults on a per capita basis in the USA. The reason why the storage procedures are not different is because of ignorance or because they are not ignorant and are deliberately making the decision that the current number of deaths caused by Alcohol is acceptable.

    So for the mods reading this and wondering how this relevant to the topic the answer is quite simple, Cleo, Strangerland, and Yabits have been trying to shame gun owners over the number of children and adults killed due to firearms. I'm just simply pointing out that if they want to make such comments they should first look at their own lives and ask themselves if they participate or condone any recreational activity that kills just as many if not more children and adults on a per capita basis and if they are OK with severely restricting or prohibiting such products.

    Posted in: 12-year-old boy with fake gun dies after shot by Ohio officer

  • -1

    Noliving

    Because the cost of your 'right' to own guns is that 5-6 year old kids get shot at school, and 12 year old kids get shot in the playground.

    And yet that cost is lower than the number of children being killed because of Alcohol. Would you agree to give up Alcohol or would you say the current number of children being killed or being severely injured by an intoxicated adult is an acceptable cost so that recreational Alcohol remains legal?

    even when those costs include the deaths of thousands of children every year.

    Cleo you yourself defend the right for you to have the freedom to consume alcohol for recreational purposes even though it kills more children on a per capita basis than guns do.

    Posted in: 12-year-old boy with fake gun dies after shot by Ohio officer

  • 0

    Noliving

    Well American media is much opinionated and likes to be sensationalist, another difference is that it seems in the USA the media is purposely trying to make people afraid. I will say this though that CNN also tries to be weather channel at certain times.

    Posted in: What do you think are some of the main differences in the way Japanese and U.S. media report the news?

  • 0

    Noliving

    And this nonsense about Okinawa being strategically important? Give it a break. Guam, the Philippines, or a half dozen uninhabited Japanese islands would be equally strategically important.

    @Frungy - Really? What uninhabited Japanese islands would be just as strategically important to Japan as Okinawa? How in gods name is Guam as strategically as important to defending Japan as Okinawa? Do you even know where Guam is? For crying out loud Philippines would be more strategically important to defending Japan than Guam.

    Okinawa is probably the most important land that is under Japan's control, it is closest to its main sea trade lanes that it relies on for energy imports, as well as being nearly equally distant from mainland China, Taiwan, Korean Peninsula, as well as the main islands of Japan: Honshu and Kyushu.

    Posted in: Okinawa vote a blow to Japan-U.S. ties, say analysts

  • 1

    Noliving

    where isn't Sony a loser in every industry it's in?

    Making movies, there movies generally make a profit.

    Posted in: Sony takes hard look at streaming after Taylor Swift snub

  • 2

    Noliving

    So the Republicans want to repeal a law that was there idea for how to fix the health care "industry" back in the mid 90s. I'm curious as to what the new Republican plan is.

    Posted in: U.S. Speaker Boehner touts bills to repeal Obamacare, build Keystone oil pipeline

  • 1

    Noliving

    Exactly. So your party should try some bipartisanship, instead of ripping apart your country by opposing everything the Democrats propose, simply because the democrats are proposing it.

    To be fair Strangerland the house of representatives have in fact passed bills that were authored by Democrat representatives, Harry Reid has refused take his own parties bills that were passed in the house of representatives and put them up for a vote in the Senate.

    Posted in: Republicans take control of U.S. Senate

  • 0

    Noliving

    Strongly implied? Why not ask a question and confirm that assumption? Among gun owners, there are some who have more respect for life than others. I can't speak for all gun-owners, but if a person has consciously made the decision not to own a gun because of the risks involved, for me, that person has FAR higher regard for life than any gun defender I have ever encountered.

    I didn't think it was necessary to ask the question and confirm the assumption, and it appears I was right not to.

    Alcohol is not the issue here, as you've been reminded. Stop grasping at straws.

    I'm not grasping at straws Yabits I'm proving a point that a person who chooses not to own or engage in an activity does not have a higher regard for human life than someone who does but takes precautions to manage the risk. Nor does a person who defends said object or activity have a lower regard for human life than someone who is actively trying to heavily restrict if not prohibit said object or activity. I think that is entirely relevant to what we are discussing and that is do gun owners or gun defenders have a lower regard for human life than non-gun owners.

    It is a fallacious argument to say those that refuse to own an object or engage in a certain activity have a higher regard for human life than those who decide to own or engage in such things. If you honestly believed said argument you would have no trouble being able to apply it yourself.

    Posted in: 2 dead, including gunman, in school shooting near Seattle

  • 0

    Noliving

    When confronted with a gun-rights advocate who obviously displays less regard for human life with his "Who's counting?" comment -- a comment doubtless shared by many -- you proved my point by choosing to confront the person who points it out. Anyone who chooses not to own a gun because they fear for the safety of others if it is ever stolen or misused obviously has far higher regard for human life than someone who keeps defending the "right" of the general population to own guns.

    Yabits if you had made that comment and it was only directed at the person who made that comment I would not have taken issue with what you said. The issue I have is that you strongly implied that gun owners as a whole in general have less respect for human life than non-gun owners. That just simply isn't true and you know it. not to mention the fact that it is hypocritical of you to make such as statement when you condone and engage in a recreational activity that kills more people than firearms do on a per capita basis. Confronting you on that point is not proving your point.

    Someone who chooses to not own a gun because they don't trust themselves does not have a higher regard for human life than those who own firearms but keep them secured when not in use and follow safe handling guidelines when they are being used.

    Would you claim that someone who chooses not drink alcohol has a higher regard for human life than people like you or Cleo or Stranger who either condone recreational drinking and or engage in it and would defend it from prohibitionists?

    Would you claim those that choose not engage in casual sex for fear of getting an STD and then spreading it to a partner have more regard for human life than those who do engage in casual sex but use protection?

    Posted in: 2 dead, including gunman, in school shooting near Seattle

  • 0

    Noliving

    One thing I have never understood is that if you are a ceremonial guard with a gun why do they have empty magazines inserted into the gun? Why not just have an unloaded firearm with no magazine at all?

    Posted in: Canadian soldier, gunman dead in parliament attack

  • -2

    Noliving

    It's not fair to address a comment that the number of innocent people killed by guns in a single incident (like Sandy Hook) doesn't matter? Oh come on yourself; you are defending what is indefensible.

    What are you talking about? The comment you made that I quoted was not about a single incident, the comment you made was that gun owners as a whole in general have less regard for human life than non-gun owners regardless of a single incident. That is not a fair comment and quite frankly is hypocritical of you to claim when you condone and participate in a recreational activity that kills more people on a per capita basis than firearms do. BTW I'm not defending the sandy hook massacre or any other massacre.

    That's 100 proof stupidity. And I don't need 2-3 inches of column space to show just how stupid it is: The next time a kid goes into a high school and kills a bunch of people armed only with alcohol, tell us about it.

    So basically the argument is that if the alcohol deaths are not as "sensational" as gun deaths they don't count the same?

    Or, how about this one: A man goes into a Wal-Mart and takes a rifle right off the display rack. He then makes a cell phone call, oblivious to the fact that police have surrounded him and are ready to blow him away -- which they do. The next time someone gets blown away by the police for taking a bottle of Jack Daniels off the shelf, tell us about it.

    What difference does it make Yabits if the death is caused by a drunk driver or a drunken fist fight or law enforcement shooting someone for taking something off of a store shelf to look at it. They are all pre-mature deaths and they are all just as needless.

    Note to the Moderator: The reason why I brought up Alcohol related deaths was because of Yabits sanctimonious post. If he is going to make the claim that gun owners in general have less regard for human life than non gun owners than they better not participate or condone a recreational activity that kills just as many people and if not more people than firearms. That is entirely relevant to the comment Yabits made about gun owners and the larger discussion relating to firearms.

    Posted in: 2 dead, including gunman, in school shooting near Seattle

  • 1

    Noliving

    “I don’t like it if I have to be silent. I want to talk to him,” bemoans one lady

    That is why they took you to a movie because they knew you would talk to much.

    Posted in: Worst date ever! Japanese ladies reveal the top five date ideas to avoid

  • 0

    Noliving

    the love people had for these devices and the inability to listen to criticism of them was truly disturbing.

    @Jimizio I think the reason for that is those making the criticism usually have a tone or attitude of being sanctimonious to gun owners.

    What this brings home is how so many who support these so-called "gun rights" have so little regard for human life.

    Oh come on that is not fair. Alcohol kills more people on a per capita basis in UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, China, USA than guns do on a per capita basis in the USA.

    How much should I bet Yabits that you condone or in fact participate in recreational consumption of Alcohol that is responsible for more deaths on a per capita basis than guns are in the USA. How much should I bet that Cleo, Stranger, Smith, SuperLib all engage or have engage or at the very least condone the activity of recreational alcohol consumption?

    If a government in any one of those listed countries above wanted to pass laws stating the customer had to go through a background check for each sale of alcohol to prevent the legal sale of Alcohol to people who have been convicted of crimes like drunken assault, drunk driving, etc. What if they wanted to pass a registry of alcoholic beverage sales that way they could track those who are supplying minors. What if they wanted to pass a law that says you could only purchase one alcoholic beverage per hour or ever two hours or heck what if they just limited you to one alcoholic beverage per day. What if they wanted to raise the minimum drinking age to 25 or 30.

    Would you be for those laws being passed or would you say that the resulting lives that could have been saved are an acceptable cost not to have those laws passed?

    I don't think it would be fair of me, I'm not a gun owner by the way, to say those that condone recreational consumption of alcohol and would be oppose to the above proposed laws would have little regard for human life and quite frankly I think it is very hypocritical to act like they care more about human lives than gun owners simply because they don't approve of guns and yet completely ignore the fact that Alcohol kills more than guns and or are unwilling to give up Alcohol or at the very least support measures to more heavily restrict the sale of Alcohol to save just as many lives if more lives than guns.

    The truth of the matter is that in order to enjoy the pleasures of life means you will have to accept a daily death toll, if the only acceptable number for a daily death toll to enjoy the pleasures of life is zero than quite frankly that means we are all going to have very boring lives.

    Posted in: 2 dead, including gunman, in school shooting near Seattle

  • 0

    Noliving

    Repubs are totally cool with Viagra covered by insurance

    To be fair Viagra is not a form of birth control and two it can do nothing but only increase pregnancies and the spread of STDs when it comes to sex which means it doesn't contradict their anti-birthcontrol/abortion sentiment.

    Posted in: Clinton says women's rights under assault by Republicans

View all