You’re argument assumes that violence and extreme emotion are not part of human nature, which is a fallacy. While I am an excellent marksman with long range weapons, I don’t actually own any; so it would difficult for me to actually shoot down a drone. In general, I advocate for non-violent resolutions. However, that…

I said no such thing. I merely explained why she said what she said and how it was still relevant. Fine example of higher cognition to assume I said that, though.

The point was there really isn’t a separation between humans and other animals—we’re all just animals. Since drones are becoming more prevalent in every day life in some parts of the world, this post and thread are still relevant; and Gawker recently linked to another post similar to this one.

I probably would’ve disappeared too. They had enough evidence to convict him without her testimony; that she took a settlement from him shouldn’t’ve made any difference to the evidence gathered. The person to be mad at is Hardy, not Holder.

It’s from the “Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show.” The full quote is: “(angrily) Oh, no attitude, eh? Not in your face, huh? Well, you can cram it with walnuts, ugly!”

Actually, it’s not that she’s lost her humanity; it’s that she believes people’s actions are based on their choices and their choices alone. The daughter has culpability in her own death. Was Amazon wrong for selling her a banned substance? Yes. However, Amazon’s doesn’t really have any, even though they sold her the…