it is also owned by the people who run it
The ownership of a service, ideally, should make no difference to that service's trustworthiness.
It matters because American culture currently prefers everyone to have a college degree as opposed to any other type of education. [...] If this avenue was cut off then the attitude of the public would change to allow other means of education.
I completely agree that our favoring of, or requiring of post-secondary degrees for employement is an important cultural issue. I don't agree, however, that the solution is to make the provision of loans illegal -- illegalization is rarely anything else than a band-aid on top of a gaping wound. An argument could be made that the government provision of student loans should be stopped (in countries where that occurs e.g. Canada), but I don't think the solution is to simply make all student loans illegal.
and then yoke them into debt for the rest of their lives.
Hm, that is an assumption. There's a few issues with that statement. The total cost of one's loans are directly related to the cost of the post-secondary institution that they decide to attend. There is little reason to go to a very expensive institution. I do understand that some employers are elitist in that they won't hire anybody outside of an ivy league school, but I would wager that that issue is not very prevalent -- the free market should take up the slack. Furthermore, one's ability to get out of such debt is related to the income that they expect from employment after attaining their degree, as well as their level of monetary responsibility, and savviness. If one decides to blindly go into student debt for studies that will offer little in return, that is one's own risk to take. You must also not forget that there is no requirement that one must do white-collar work. Trades do not require such degrees, and are just as well-paying, if not better.
Are you replying to the following?
In every normal country this couldn’t happen because that guy wouldn’t have a gun in the first place.
Are you referring to a shooting in self-defence by a law-abiding gun owner? If so, then yes, if said law-abiding citizen didn't have a gun, then, by modus tollens, they wouldn't be able to use a gun in self-defence.
content-signature:MPvnKfx103YjaEk1xAXkZad4N/0g8T26skCzlxub/U2C7YlNL3ycnBO+T9uLoaM1EJ93KjJxWFjisQOWL6sw6znCkte+v0HXg6SP1KewjQGthXuEwCkFNvbmgNMs/yB9UCnqHQA94fdb1NKgi6NpZqh/Ja6cn6B/fsLAyOtMSAEtmYJWG/Dqa3I9p5GdHXUlMsWpKpZrd4oQ8qxDIDZPYgApZPhNKLHJijZK0lrsj91HbSapgCPY9gGVwT758MnEQ4MdgmywfwFlXxhzPU3qDLu6J/tqjNAPNiPdadE9VN9H/Oj5C2I235zLgmk9TCdMoNz1ZwjpXfg566OZxsjWog==
It seems like the best outcome would be: person having their personal space invaded tells the “perp” to stop it.
The best outcome, sure, but not a guaranteed outcome.
judge orders to cease their invasive harassment against other people.
That's not really how the law works. If It is already illegal to harass people, then the court order would essentially be along the lines of "I order you to stop doing illegal things!".
The whole being shot just shows how quick to violence and homicide Americans are. It’s like, the solution to everything these days. Dealing with people the past few years in public is pretty dicey, just asking someone not to cut in front of you at the checkout line could potentially lead to a mass shooting these days.
It isn't entirely fair to group unprovoked violence with self-defence. There is an argument that could be made for proportional response in defence, but this is a separate issue.
content-signature:pAJkBsbiDHXMaSZ2SkenLgap0KT3Jnz3LV4F7n97GHsbMXIAVNZFFnsd4WxHZ6ryOSW6OvoT+fWGWCrTyCFjAH/IjqtLbk2uPqIXBNRAFv6AGQ3swX6kqtpKe97t35Of+ACUgyXM4BX0HGpoEojRhuHrKUU2EAD8brvTkHBVIXD5QTDWibmEm6aUZpnfCmBLoAyo8J/uiN1NBnbYZghJ9vgG8JVIo26MNFeP9Vq79LihQ0wp6PXHiS38+M4YQ65wk+cPKWXgxYfg4N/VNdsQkoAtEk4OVnMAZoh42eBiGNbTcp2xB4V9Qwk+eCkn1POi1DTKb7NYjpi03kj1lvRX1A==
Using a bot to generate a URL preview is an interesting workaround.
Content Signature: cLObDckmLviCA8xG832rJ8PFk9UTYN/PrdRb5/lCZkl+GsjtkMp90r6PWD+Ffxby0izyxVeDocLbJh8xrP7L3a1dUX2whEABb8mAhl+cHJqbxq07Z3SWBcroLyolMjmIfUQIgRRRB6lUhbsiwCfKcoVrf0HQchXZS+83YcyMtr+dgiIhVQar3/WMkIk+4nJ/sS+O2vz7c/RfxAzYYzFSPErFVe8Y1NWXWqPOajV/BdLS0U8239ElxUb7Q2Zq8SCgzqoOBtFbgWXTsa6lHFj4gqkRiaDzH6jlJhuO4rRZdA6E2dP+G0Ru7MexI1P6ev65I6VMWxYye0nqtdXC8Alp3A==
I take issue with some of the wording that you use.
it’s best to just kill the shit out of anyone
An argument could be made for reasonable, and proportional response given the context involved; however, do note that when one is trained for the use of a firearm in self-defence, they aren't trained to make a killing shot, they are, instead, trained to shoot for center mass to ensure the highest chance of striking their target.
anyone you think might be a threat
There should be no "might" involved. You act when you are certain that there is an immediate threat.
content-signature:Re4nBlceIFwCUt0aa8Q0VJI/nf6k0y3v4LCvJXZvir3Xh1cRxppkyI5d8ml+SDupRCLkjo5IeKXiY/2ktiHtMQjgoFTBdlcRvKo54at63dp9OgmY6gYp5rq0u6096uIjk4+w/8U9YILmxNOlMbiNWtWM9CgnCbIWBdLhOMSAxxR2w1VOx6t+9sdfHN4j2rnBdZG+Sw70czdtBAKmasnXe0Mx5SAp7ccoq9YDjSSMYg6z5GkHs2RFkaW/EccRRRz88MRLz0hhSs0X8mgz5aa09pcKJTxBPD24AOUeY9DaH9XqHnmcMFS7b6gMIbWQkKyVrTWpNBiuzYm6J1dll5HJFA==
In every other country if three people decide it’d be funny to beat you to death, you actually have zero you can do about it.
I don't know if you mean that one would lack the means, or that they are simply prohibited by law to defend themself, but, in either case, it is false in that there do exist countries in which one can defend themself, or defend themself and carry the means to defend themeself. For example, let's look at Canada (do not interpret this as legal advice):
34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
So we can see that one is allowed to defend themself. Things do get a little more trick when we are talking about the means to defend oneself. Canada's criminal code defines a "weapon", as follows:
weapon means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person
and then further states
88 (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.
Punishment
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
However, there are some loopholes in this. As long as one states that they are not carrying an item with the purpose of causing harm to another, and that such reasoning could be reasonably justified, given the context, one could, for example, carry a knife. Carrying a firearm, however, is significantly more complicated, and difficult.
RvzKdXmHFIp8J+d3mmGIEyVSdsasZDUWhjSowB0IplIbNNRBto4TzFiKTueEaYakSsSQ9F/KQxtXK5NMbSWgeX3gSXr+ry5KvwAidi/9HxY0NFzHINnJ4682kK7E247jObijihDyootBL9nOMVeqEB0jFaHL5x6aQuNsmmOCmrMpjIeAiCimQXg1PFlEnY83JDLjlInwxh5uH5dnhCupXBpPFzj1dKwk8hsONY40w9wOK8i+3/lhVUMRXm3fwAAAUbuqlaizX9qp8yDrqd868pEbuCvrz6lh5Z4WQAvKkmO+GUWP+O0ARctxoHD5mhjDD/R2O3JVlIwYVf5Cc9PQXA==
I'm not trying to make a strawman argument with this comment, I would simply like to state the misfortune that some countries prohibit the use of pepper spray for self-defence. Canada is one such example that is known to me.
tshLz68OTxAkqdrN0fsu2PS0B3WTZAEQxH9bUUpQeu0M/piF3foJbme1ziay5+3XkCIyRUqO6fornlpkXdp0QK9/xIIy7Z/vf+NOSZ/NC+hrZsvmplMjNkhRJ3U2kzKEMINpt6NDvnsNrxsHMVO+V/wJLsA2a7sV/WZcrtHaxQmk+n6dATEK1NzGx5Dcl96wsiSTHLI7Y5cXtp7VvzZ4xQ6Vefg1CDf44lQnQcKUWcdY9DeTCksEUzQba0ee/UCO1HaoPhzlYnH4wNLayMOZHjg+l5uRSDFeEzEK8+ElNAQaP9rCG/g/RpvuPrwAkM2I6cCCQkudj1FdGEPSgSzYmQ==
Indeed, it does. It can be overlooked, however. I added that info to my post, though. Thank you for the note.
AcN4ig5AQaP5RPDXd4zDkAmFvg+Xp65zI6i5ossToWdpV7Ad2r7s0UAn6TRKG5NbiBOvr+ZWk8fVS8abFcXGEmEp9axEG/BOxJVSMteDTjhf74fVmRbIxik8EpYR2FA5DXTK/r6nrxxiuTTak5kNUrSi2Bb4ebdFEEhrdikuDm68jjHiXsqOS2O4JYxUhhd0qrjnzaCAtiCr1KnqyR+9eEtUDv8nx8IvAnk/9EmzSnPxn5BinJYFjM3qEh3KYyqfY//d0brUQFkbKJmqn1KGdhmzZG7SUtZPsAozJSrVFHynavEwx6SIhxAbJYojQ10RjkYYXVQ10RNmB+NiPs1Zgg==
Shall I assume that your snide remark indicates that you have no rationale?
I agree which is why we need a federal ban on high capacity weapons.
What is your rationale behind that statement?
The roundness of the Earth is under contention too.
Err, no it isn't. There is a difference between subjective disagreement, and denialism.
Kalcifer
joined 1 year ago
The issue with email, unless you are comumnicating between two Proton Mail accounts, is that your message will likely be stored on another server which is extremely likely to be unencrypted. The bottom line is that you can never trust the rest of the infrastructure, and you have no control over it. You can end-to-end encrypt using PGP, but this is extremely impractical.