Noliving's past comments

  • -1


    Just don't forget that that statement can easily be used on either side.

    So what?

    Posted in: Trump shrugs off fuss over Taiwan president's call

  • 1


    The man just broke major diplomatic protocol, and his chief concern is not the lives of everyone who could be affected if this turns sour. His chief concern is how he looks on Twitter.

    F this facade/charade that this diplomatic protocol is.

    This is much ado about nothing.

    The USA invites the Dalai Lama to the white house nearly every presidency, lets keep in mind this is a man that the Chinese consider a terrorist and we are inviting him to the white house!

    We have openly sold billions of dollars of weapons to Taiwan. We have a defense agreement with Taiwan that says if China attacks them we will defend them. Isn't that basically a declaration of war against China?

    Not to mention we have extensive trade agreements with Taiwan.

    The USA now does regular freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea on islands China considers to be its territory. Not to mention the US air-force that does spying operations in international air space on China.

    You have the Chinese regularly harassing/attacking Philippines and Vietnamese and other nations fishing vessels in the South China Sea.

    But oh no! Out of all that it will be this phone call or any other phone call that the president does with the president of Taiwan that will start the war...

    Give me a break katsu78

    However all US presidents have to maintain the diplomatic protocol for preserving peace and stability.

    This is nothing more than a argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy argument.

    Eventually you have to stand up to threats. You could use the same argument when it comes to islamic terrorists, either do as they say or they will attack you.

    Posted in: Trump shrugs off fuss over Taiwan president's call

  • 2


    Well, seems to me that the government here is actually putting a price on the value of their SDF members lives.

    This same person whom I'm quoting would then complain that the government doesn't give the family of the dead soldier any compensation if they didn't do the "immoral" thing of putting a price on the value of the SDF soldier lives.

    Posted in: Japan to pay Y90 mil for death of each SDF soldier in South Sudan

  • 4


    Nutters come from all parts of society but these attacks are only considered to be "terrorism" when it's a Muslim running amok, stabbing and shooting people. If a white person does exactly the same thing it's not terrorism. I cannot understand the difference myself and I expect the distinction is also lost on those being shot.

    There was a time in the 90's when it was considered terrorism when whites did it.

    Posted in: Terrorism suspected in car-and-knife attack at Ohio State University

  • -1


    At least the people got free education and free health care.

    So in other words the ends justify the means argument, correct?

    The strength of this argument depend upon if that was the only way to achieve those ends.

    Posted in: Celebration, sorrow and slights greet news of Castro's death

  • 0


    Hillary won the popular vote, and this year marks a quarter century since a GOP candidate has done so. (Not that that stops them from assuming power anyway.)

    2004 Bush won the popular vote.

    Posted in: In 2nd day of anti-Trump protests, civil rights a top concern

  • 0


    It's not already?

    Nope, in order to be a Banana Republic your economy almost entirely has to be dependent upon a resource export.

    Posted in: Secret Service says no gun involved in Trump rally commotion

  • 0


    Quite frankly the only true way to resolve this is to just say that all bathroom are unisex and that both male and females can use the exact same bathroom at the same time.

    Posted in: U.S. Supreme Court to hear case of transgender bathroom policy

  • 0


    Meh, seen better during my college days on campus.

    Posted in: New range of light-up costumes perfect for Halloween

  • 0


    By eliminating them. Australia did it.

    No they didn't considering the fact that Australia today has just as many if not more firearms today than at the time of the Port Arthur massacre.

    Guns kill. Less guns means less deaths. Less guns is good.

    Seeing as this logic basically applies to everything that then means that we should have less of everything.

    Posted in: Former Marine kills 3 Baton Rouge police officers, wounds 3 others

  • -2


    Micah used cop-killer bullets which cops, for obvious reasons, have wanted banned for years - but the GOP refuses to bring it up for a vote

    No he didn't use armor piercing rounds. Shotguns and rifles will go through Type-IIIa body armor because that body armor is only designed to stop pistol calibers, not long guns. Type IV and Type V are designed to stop long guns and only swat teams have that type of body armor.

    So you are left with two options, either you ban all longs guns or you provide all law enforcement officers with Type 4 and Type 5 body armor.

    It's engineered to pierce armored vests. Technically, they're know as Teflon-coated bullets. Because conventional bullets, made primarily from lead, often become deformed and less effective after striking hard targets, coating them with substances such as Teflon allow them to more efficiently penetrate such objects as car doors and armored vests.

    Ah yes the old Teflon coated bullet myth. Teflon coated bullets have less penetrative power when impacting Nylon and Kevlar and the reason for that is because the Teflon is designed to cause the bullet to grip better to the surface it hits. Well in body armor the whole point of kevlar and nylon is to act like a spider web in that it is supposed to grab the bullet, so you have fabrics that are designed to act like spiderwebs and then you factor in that the Teflon coating is grip or stick the bullet to what it hits, especially if it hits at an oblique angle. So guess what the end result is then? If you answered that it reduces the penetrative power of a bullet when it impacts nylon and kevlar vests you would be correct.

    The only time Teflon improves the penetration power is when it hits a hard surface like glass or metal, primarily at oblique angles because the Teflon results in the bullet gripping the surface instead of ricocheting off of it.

    Posted in: Former Marine kills 3 Baton Rouge police officers, wounds 3 others

  • 1


    Well regulated = registration for any new gun translation in a database like with a car registration.

    Cars are registered to generate tax revenue to pay for the maintenance of roads, not as a means to deter criminal usage of cars or to make people drive safer. Plus there is zero evidence that the registration of cars in and of itself results in people driving safer and deters criminals from using cars to commit crimes or to facilitate crimes with cars. Perhaps you can find the studies that prove your claim. Finally are you honestly claiming that there have been times when you wanted to physically harm people with a car but was stopped only because your car was registered?

    It's the difference between one in a thousand and one in one hundred thousand. I think that's significant.

    Well one it isn't and two the odds of person dying in the USA from all causes put together is 1 in 8,000 annually. See if you have a one in thousand chance each year that means it would take you 1000 years on average before it would actually happen and when you consider that the average life span of a human is between 70-100 years old it is irrational and more importantly impractical to make decisions on ownership of products or experiencing of news things based off of such odds, you are not really gaining any real practical benefits.

    Finally the odds are far greater that you will die from Alcohol than you are to die from guns, do you consider that enough reason to more heavily regulate Alcohol or to even ban Alcohol or voluntarily give up Alcohol? I doubt you do.

    Posted in: 'The Voice' singer Christina Grimmie dies after shooting

  • -7


    Is that figure correct? If we restrict just to homicides involving firearms, according to wikipedia there were 11,208 in 2013. Assume they were done by separate people. If there are 100,000,000 gun owners, thats's 0.11208% of the gun owning population killing people.

    Meh..Either way it is a fraction of a fraction of one percent of the gun owning population killing someone which means claiming the gun owning population in the USA is not well regulated is just not true and is basically hyperbolic BS.

    And yes you are correct the figure is incorrect, on the low end of the gun owning population it would be 0.14% not the 0.0014% I stated earlier.

    Posted in: 'The Voice' singer Christina Grimmie dies after shooting

  • -17


    Failed gun policy. End of story.

    Crime statistics would indicate other wise, gun homicides are down nearly 49% in the past 20 years, non-fatal gun assaults are down 69%.

    "Well Regulated Militia" again...

    Well there are around 70-100+ million gun owners in the USA, if each gun death and gun assault was committed by a different person that would be around 100,000 people at most out of 70-100 million gun owners. Which means at most 0.0014% of the gun owning population are committing crimes which is a very low number. So yes it would appear it is a well regulated militia.

    God HELP America.

    Get a grip.

    Posted in: 'The Voice' singer Christina Grimmie dies after shooting

  • 1


    Interesting that you focus on 'grade school'. I wonder why you don't include high school and university?

    Because high school is grade school in the USA. Depending upon your definition it is grades 9th or 10th-12th.

    As for colleges/universities, Stranger was talking about children not adults.

    And I wonder where you pulled that particular statistic from? According to the Pew Research Centre, a poll in 2013 showed that nearly half - 48% - of gun-owners in the US have a gun for 'protection'; 2% 'because it's their constitutional right/they support the 2nd Amendment'; 2% don't know why they have a gun; 32% use guns for hunting; 2% are collectors and 7% have guns for target/sport shooting. Even if you consider killing wild (or in many cases, canned★) furry/feathery things for fun 'recreational' rather than highly malicious, it's obvious that guns are not overwhelmingly primarily used for recreation. People have guns, those people say, for protection. They're scared.

    Easy - I said owned for non-malicious reasons and is overwhelming used for recreation. The vast majority of those that own firearms for protections are far more likely to use the firearm for target shooting then they are for self defense or to assault/kill someone, much less themselves, for malicious reasons.

    If you own a firearm then you will use it at some point for target shooting. Also there are multiple reasons one can have, the poll is only allowing one answer which would be the primary reason but people who a firearm primarily for self defense can also own it because they enjoy target shooting and the opposite is true, someone who owns one for target shooting doesn't mean they won't or can't use one in the event they need to use physical force to defend themselves.

    That works out at fewer than 10,000 gun deaths per year. In 2015 over 13,000 were killed by firearms (not including suicides), so your figures are off there, too.

    Your own link says this:

    The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000

    So in other words according to your own link the per capita gun homicide rate was just under three thousandths of one percent.

    Posted in: U.S. schools preparing for the worst, with active shooter drills

  • -1


    In this case, they are the ones whose opinion should matter the most, as they are the ones who have been most affected by the legality of guns, and they are the group that will keep increasing in numbers as long as guns are legal. Their opinion doesn't help you keep guns legal, nor does it help you keep the policies and laws the way they are, which is why you are discrediting their opinion.

    Stranger how does pointing out that mass killers don't have a personal grudge against children in general when they attack a school and are most likely doing it for the fame mean you or I are attempting to discredit their opinion? Explain that one.

    But kids get shot and murdered while trying to learn.

    The homicide rate at USA grade schools is basically the same as the developed world, for example the homicide rate of the UK grade schools was basically the same if not slightly higher this past year and half than the USA.

    Are they now? You are the one who made the comparison, and none of the rest of us are stupid enough to think that, so you can only be talking about yourself then.

    When you have two products that over 99.9%, literally, are used for non-malicious reasons and are overwhelmingly primarily used for recreation when in the hands of the civilians is what makes them an equivalent. To suggest that the only thing that can makes products an equivalent is what they were designed for is just intellectually dishonest.

    Different enjoyment. One is enjoying practicing murder and killing. The other isn't. Apple and orange.

    Really? You believe that every single target shooter or even the vast majority of those target shooting, especially those tourists from Europe, East Asia, Japan and China especially, when they go to a gun range their primary motivation is to practice homicide and killing?

    Would you say those that practice the sport of fencing are just practicing to murder and kill by stabbing? How about the Olympic fencers? Heck about the Olympians that are target shooters at the games, whether it be with bow or a gun.

    Lets say you are correct, what is the conversion rate then of those who target shoot? We already know that the gun death rate(Suicides, accidents, and homicides) is one hundredth of one percent and if you include those wounded then it it is three hundredths of one percent. So are we talking about 1%? 10%? or are we talking about something is a fraction of a fraction of one percent?

    I'm annoyed of the attempts at gun lovers who are willing to let children die so that they can have their steel phalluses to try to pretend that other things that aren't made for killing are even remotely equivalent.

    This is coming from a person who is willing to let more children die from Alcohol so that he can get his rocks off of on Alcohol.

    Do you honestly believe it helps your argument that more children die from something that isn't designed to kill people than from something that is? Do you honestly think it helps your argument that the vast majority of gun owners don't hurt people? Do you honestly think it helps your argument that gun owners send less people to the hospital then people who drink Alcohol?

    I will say it again, to claim that the only thing that matters when claiming products are equivalent to one another is what they were originally designed for is just intellectually dishonest.

    the only reason I don't approve of gun is because they take people's lives. Kids get murdered at school. Kids murder each other. Kids kill each other accidentally because their parents are too stupid to not have a gun in the house.

    Then you should have no problem acknowledging that if your goal is to save lives then what something is designed to do is irrelevant because a premature death is a premature death regardless of its cause.

    And I notice you still don't answer the question on whether you prefer to live in a society where criminals have more or less guns.

    I prefer to live in a world where criminals have less access to weapons of any type, I prefer to live in a world where criminals have less access to any items that they could wield/use for malicious reasons.

    With that being said I have to weigh the increase in odds of something bad happening because of the increase access vs the amount of people using those things for non-malicious reasons.

    In this case of firearms we know that with a gun ownership rate of 32-50% it has resulted in a three thousandth of one percent of the USA population being murdered on an annual basis and two hundredths of one percent physically wounded.

    In general if you have a product that is owned by 32-50% of the population for non-malicious reasons and it results in a similar number of people being murdered and wounded then I would say that is an acceptable cost. How about you Stranger?

    And that is a good enough reason to never even think about banning gun possession by civilians??? Definitely the stupidest in the world when it comes to guns. …Yeah it is so stupid that as a result one hundredth of one percent of its population is killed by it each year......

    So Jane what you are saying is that you believe Alcohol should be banned then? Or do you believe that the amount of people dying from Alcohol is an acceptable cost to enjoy Alcohol if push came to shove in terms of keeping Alcohol legal?

    I am lost for words. An overwhelming logic indeed!

    Yeah it is, who could have ever imagine that people refuse to let the odds of something that small dictate how they will live their lives. Is it morally and ethically wrong Jane to say that something that has the odds of like 1 out of 50,000 chance annually of hurting/killing you is acceptable?

    Posted in: U.S. schools preparing for the worst, with active shooter drills

  • -3


    I see. So the pro-gun stance is that the feelings of parents of kids murdered by guns don't matter. Got it.

    That is quite a leap Stranger, I never said that the feelings don't matter entirely. I'm saying that having a test that every single statement or comment or opinion on every single topic that involves people being injured or killed that has to make the family and friends of those impacted feel better doesn't help the conversation nor move it forward a single inch nor does it help make better policies/laws. If anything it does the complete opposite.

    If you allow cars, society doesn't collapse. If you allow knives, people can cook. If you allow alcohol, people will enjoy themselves. if you allow computers, society doesn't collapse.

    And allowing firearms a society doesn't collapse either. Do you honestly think a country like the USA where the economy is growing, unemployment rate is going down, crime is going down, and the population is growing is a sign that the USA collapsing?

    You can cook using non metal knives Stranger and if even if you couldn't cook you can eat a lot of foods raw and survive. Society didn't collapse before the invention of electrical computers.

    If you allow guns, children die. Mothers die. Fathers die. Grandparents die. Friends die.

    That is true with every single product, if you allow Alcohol children will die, Mothers will die, Fathers will die, grandparents will die, friends will die. If you allow cars people and animals will die.

    Just say it Stranger, you believe that their deaths are an acceptable cost so that you can enjoy Alcohol and so you can have the freedom to not have to use public transportation. God forbid anyone ever say the samething about any other product that kills less than Alcohol, especially if that product was originally designed to kill but is overwhelming used for non-malicious reasons.

    If you don't allow knives, people cannot cook.

    You can cook food just fine using non-metallic knives. Heck at the very basic definition of cooking you don't even need a knife of any type. You just need a heat source.

    Can we drop this ridiculous attempt at comparing guns to things that aren't built to kill?

    It is not a ridiculous attempt at all. If your goal is to save lives then it is irrelevant if a product is designed to kill or not because a premature death is a premature death regardless of its cause.

    No one is stupid enough to think they are an equivalent

    Yes they are, they are both(Alcohol and guns) overwhelmingly used for non-malicious reasons. Firearms especially. They both are primarily used in civilian hands for recreation. They both result in premature deaths, Alcohol kills more than firearms do. If you claim that your primary motivation to get rid of guns is to save lives then you will have no problem explaining how your distinction will have a practical impact on reducing premature deaths.

    Do you honestly think that by claiming something is not designed to kill that that point by itself will cause that said product to begin killing less people either today or tomorrow because of it? If I was to to go to you and say Alcohol is not designed to kill do you honestly think that on a practical level starting today or tomorrow that Alcohol will begin to kill less people because of it? Or that it makes the deaths caused by Alcohol any less premature?

    If the answer is no then it would be a fair statement to say that the distinction has zero practical benefits to the goal of saving lives and that it is really nothing more than a euphemism for saying I believe that the premature deaths caused by such things are an acceptable cost so that I own an enjoy those said products, correct?

    it's just an attempt by the gun lovers to deflect from the fact that guns have no positive effect on society.

    The same benefits that people get from recreational Alcohol consumption are the same benefits people get when using a firearm for recreation at a range or for the most part any recreation that people do. If you honestly believe that they have zero positive effect on society then you believe that the gun ranges that Japanese tourists go to in Guam and Hawaii have zero positive impact on society, really? You believe that the Minnesota High school clay target shooting league has zero positive effects on the people that participate in it. You believe that Harvard University Target shooting team that competes competitively has zero positive impacts. How about paintball and air-soft leagues, they have zero positive impacts?

    Don't insult our intelligence by claiming otherwise

    Why are you so afraid to have your intelligence insulted?

    or make your self look stupid, by putting forth stupid arguments.

    The only person here who would look stupid is the person who can't acknowledge that people all around the world use firearms for recreation and can go their entire lives and never hurt anyone with a firearm.

    The only person here who would look stupid is the one that can't acknowledge or admit that they believe that the lives lost for recreational alcohol is an acceptable cost to enjoy alcohol.

    The only person here who would look stupid is the one who beats on and on about how something is designed to kill yet deliberately ignores the fact that over 99% of the owners of said product won't use it for those reasons thus wasting everyone's time on said argument.

    The only person here who would look stupid is the one who claims that it is relevant if something is designed to kill or not if their goal is to save lives. Any intelligent person would know that the distinction has zero practical benefits to saving lives, it doesn't magically make a product safer in the future, it doesn't magically reduce the risk that the product currently poses. Nor does it mean that a product can't be just as deadly as something that is designed to kill.

    Everyone here knows that the reason why you want guns banned is not to save lives but to get rid of something you don't approve of. You don't care about the people who die from firearms, you never have, you just don't like guns and whenever anyone calls you out on it your responses are distinctions that have zero practical benefits which means they are nothing more than euphemisms for saying: Yes I'm being a hypocrite but I will never admit to it.

    Posted in: U.S. schools preparing for the worst, with active shooter drills

  • -1


    Well that should make the parents of kids shot at school feel better.

    So what if it doesn't make them feel better? Not everything in this discussion or on any other discussion of any other topic should have to pass a "test" of does it make the relatives and friends of the victim feel better. Quite frankly there is probably a lot of truth to the statement that the people who do mass killings or attempt to do mass killings against elementary children in public are not doing it out of a hate for elementary children but rather for media attention that it brings.

    but what we are saying is that more criminals will have guns when they are legal. Is that what you want? More criminals with guns?

    Which now gets to the question of balance.

    If you allow cars more criminals will use cars in crimes and will use them to evade law enforcement. If you allow metal knives then more crimes will be committed metal knives, if you allow Alcohol then more people will commit crimes while intoxicated. If you allow computers then more computer/information crimes will be committed.

    Is that what you want Stranger? More criminals using cars to aid them in crimes, or using knives to commit crimes or people getting intoxicated and committing crimes?

    The answer of course is no, so again we come to the question of balance.

    Do we believe that the benefits brought by a metal knife out weigh the additional crimes committed by metal knives when they are legal and could easily be replaced by plastic knives.

    Do we believe that the benefits of private car ownership out weigh all the additional crimes that are committed and aided by cars when they are legal when they could be replaced by public transportation.

    Do we believe that the benefits of recreational Alcohol intoxication outweigh all crimes that are committed by intoxicated people when all they would have to do is find a new hobby or drink.

    Sandyhook wasn't urban? Columbine wasn't urban?

    This may come as a surprise to you Stranger but NewTown, just over 27-28k in population, is considered a rural city.

    Columbine is considered suburban. I think his point is that school shooting are not really an urban thing they are more of a rural thing, and for the most part he is correct. Most school shootings do not take place within schools that are in a city but in the suburbs and rural parts of the nation.

    Two dead and injured in shooting Houston, TX shooting spree. I thought guns saved lives? Doesn't seem to be the case in gun happy Texas.

    They do, if it wasn't for law enforcement with firearms the death toll could very well be higher, especially when the attackers are randomly attacking people at will. Do you disagree that what happened today in Houston that if it wasn't for the firearms used by law enforcement the death toll most likely would have been higher today?

    If it wasn't for law enforcement guns at the Wisconsin prom event a few weeks ago the death toll probably would have been higher, same with the anti-Muslim rally in at a high school a few months ago.

    The idea that guns can never ever save innocent life is just BS.

    Posted in: U.S. schools preparing for the worst, with active shooter drills

  • -2


    You're ignoring the larger point,

    For good reason SuperLib, you were using incorrect information as a way to buttress the larger point. You would do the same.

    But the point is that gun supporters would help if they would let us know what kind of restrictions, if any, we could place on gun ownership.

    Using incorrect information isn't the best way to make that point.

    Posted in: U.S. schools preparing for the worst, with active shooter drills

  • 0


    “How could Trump possibly champion the collapse of the housing market and our economy?” U.S. Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio said on the call.

    Because as Trump said it was a bubble and financial bubbles are things you want to burst as soon as possible in order to limit the economic damage they do.

    "The economic collapse of 2008 wiped out $7.4 trillion in stocks, $3.4 trillion in real estate and 5.5 million jobs, according to a report from the Pew Charitable Trusts. It cost the average American household $5,800 in lost income. The effects were felt worldwide amid fears of a global financial meltdown, a Second Great Depression, brought about by too-big-to-fail-banks playing the U.S. economy like a Vegas casino. Some experts say the threat of a relapse endures." citation above

    Do you seriously honestly believe that the executive office, regardless of who is in it, has that much power over the US economy?

    Posted in: Clinton blasts Trump for cheering housing bubble burst

in Japan

Search the Largest English Job Board in Japan.

Find a Job Now!

View all

Find Your
in Japan

10,000’s of properties available today!