Total posts: 3,556
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I like Matt Dillahunty’s take on it: the foundation of a moral code is subjective, but what proceeds from that foundation can be objective.Yes, I agree. That description fits reality as I understand it. I don't think he qualifies that as objective morality though.
It seems to me it comes down to how we define "objective", or "real", how we determine what constitutes "existence".
Typically, when you ask for an example of objective truth, you get mathematics, something like 2 + 2 =4 is an objective truth.
At some stage of hominid development, our ancestors acquired a brain structure that gave them access to the mental world of mathematics. It then became as much a part of their environment as was the landscape in which they lived, and they did what animals do, they explored their environment, and in the process they discovered the reality in which they lived. We can pontificate all day long as to whether or not that reality ontologically “exists” or is “real”, but the fact remains that it is a part of our realty, it is a feature of our experience, and an aspect of the environment we explore, objectively real as any other aspect of their environment.
The kind of consideration in the case of mathematical experience that led us to discover an enriched human environment applies equally to other distinctive forms of human ability. The human experience includes qualities, values, meaning, and purpose, and these ethical intuitions are an apprehension of the existence of a moral dimension of reality open to our exploration.
This process of development provides its own beautiful process-product circularity, as we discover further humanizing facts about the nature of the reality of our experience, we define our human nature, and an objectively real human world of experience comes into being I see no reason to think Morality is any less objectively real than mathematics.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
'Real easy for those who never saw something achieved, to take it for granted, I know I do.Though maybe I should more often try 'not to, and rather recall how 'recent many changes are,Or how times were, how they were achieved.
I suppose it better than being an old guy that just doesn't get it, it feels like i'm trapped on a Felini movie.
Your brother still doing well?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bella3sp
The question was why you are OK with all changes except skin tone, why does that change bother YOU. How does telling me about how you think it would bother others explain why it bothers you?I didn't get that impression, my bad. Yes, I did use a lot of examples of others getting mad for such things. However, my opinion is there.
- There shouldn't be a difference in the discrimination status
- Artists shouldn't take away someones representation
We are talking about fictional characters, right? It's not like thier feeling get hurt or they are offended. If it's the originating artist that makes the changes, then it's his representation that he's changing, I don't see how anybody is taking anything away from anybody.
Usually you don't see major changes except for the skin tone. I can't actually think of anything as of right now that i've seen someone change the character drastically excluding skin tone. So, I don't bother. Now if there WAS a change to the character, it depends? What can you say that is discrimination on the character besides skin tone?
I don't see skin tone as discriminary against a fictional character.
But, you're not looking for that are you? So, in short, it's because this can be considered racist or discrimination.
Now you're telling me how I feel about it?
- It bothers ME because its genuinely crazy how others seem to think you can only direct racism or discrimination towards people of color.
- It bothers ME because the representation of another was taken all because you wanted to direct it towards a different representation.
- It bothers ME that things can be taken so lightly against this type of racism but the others can be dearly hated.
In the end, if you're trying to get the reaction "I don't want to see a black character in any anime series", that's not anywhere close. I'm fine with black characters. Though if you want me to say, "I don't want to see an Asian character be replaced by someone of color because its discrimination", then sure, use it that way.
I'm not asking how I feel about it, I know how I feel. I'm trying to understand the phenomenon of so many who can't tell what they stand for, they can only tell what the stand against. It doesn't sound healthy to me, I wonder if it a matter of projecting internal conclict outward.
it seems that people can only tell you who they are by telling you what they think about who they aren’t.Not completely sure how this relates. Though this is usually how it goes for everyone even if you're matured now.I will tell you that it’s clear to me that people who can’t explain themselves aren’t in control of themselves, if you don’t know why you are doing what you do, it’s probably because somebody else is pulling the strings.I am assuming this was directed towards me. It's not that I can't explain myself, in fact, I did. I explained why black-washing should be considered wrong. In all realness, that is MY opinion. Take my entire comment and turn some of my sentences in, it bothers ME because "When you take someones original representation in the case i'm talking about, they're Asian, that is discrimination towards them."Everyone or most are influenced in some way, small or big way, matured or not. Yeah, I can agree. Most are mindless puppets that form their opinions by others. But isn't this common? Isn't this what happens when others are influenced? There's a problem, they agree. Or am I getting the wrong impression? I believe you mean something else but i'm not sure.
The, older I get, the more confused I get by social issues, especially the current culture war and identity politics, just trying to understand. I'm on the outside looking in, and I just don't get it.
In short, I don't want to see someone's representation taken away. I don't want someone to be proud they are bringing another representation to cover another.
In short, that is more confusing, not less.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I would think the farther back in time one went, the 'more color/ethnicity/race politics there'd be.
No doubt, my earlies memory of the
Bus protests, separate drinking fountains, KKK was bigger, Martin Luthor King got shot, race riots, blackface Al Jolson.
I was born in 1955, recall seeing a whites only drinking fountain, watched the civil rights movement, most of the things you mentioned were in my lifetime, and I always saw progress in time. I never thought we would go far enough to elect a black President in my lifetime, was proud to see how far we had come when Obama was elected, and then wham, the first black President resulted in a giant step backwards, decades of progress evaporated overnight..
Not that I'm saying generations were worse,
To say that there was continuous progress is to say the farther you go back the worse it was, so it’s fair to say that previous generations were worse.
It's just slavery existed before the Civil War (Though that's further back than anyone alive I think)Then when it was gone, there was a large influx of identifiable people appearance/culture.
There were two separate cultures under slavery, black culture didn't influx really, it just became identifiable and "separate but equal" (at least theoretically and legally).
Though I don't mean that 'just as a race issue,I think there's clashes in society whenever 'any group is sudden,Oklahoma Dust Bowl, as an example,Grapes of Wrath,. . .Then again, lot of locations, eras, social movements, in history.
Yes, we are polarized in a lot of ways, race, economics, especially politics, intolerance is on the rise across the board.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Basically abortion comes down to two sides.Either you think that a mothers' right to her body is more important than the life of an infant.Or you think that an infant is more important to a mothers' right to her body.I tend to lean infant for this specific reason.The baby didn't choose to be created. The mother caused the creation of that life. Therefore the babys right to life trumps the mothers right to her body, because she caused that situation to take place. That along with the fact that it is a living human in the mothers body, and it is not biologically part of the mothers body.So:The mother does not have a right to kill a human life that is not part of her body, that she caused to exist.
Nope, abortion has nothing to do with infants, you are thinking infanticide, illegal always.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Without divine authority, you cannot have objective morality.I'm not convinced that is true.
I am absolutelyconvinced that it is not true.
I'm also not convinced morality need be objective to function. Convince me.
Try this one on.
Morality entails how one “ought” to behave, consequently, the question of morality is epistemic rather than ontological, so the very term “Objective Morality” frames the question wrong. If it is a matter of how one “ought” to behave, then the epistemological question becomes how do we determine what that is?
Epistemologically speaking, perhaps the answer to the question of "what that is" is that people "ought to behave" as if there is an objectivity to morality.
The assumption of freedom is a condition of the possibility of moral action, we presume free will for acting on moral principles in the first place. Consequently, morality is necessarily a choice for us to make, and how we "ought to behave" becomes a pragmatic consideration.
Morality is objectively grounded in human nature, it is an objective fact that human beings experience a reality that includes values, purposes, and meanings. Everywhere humans have existed they have held moral values that are apprehended in and through ordinary experience, morality is experienced as the response to a discernment of objective values. Consequently, morality does objectively exist as a defining aspect of human nature. Consequently, we can arrive at objective moral knowledge in the same way that we arrive at other types of objective knowledge, by the discernment of underlying principles which are tested by examining how well those principles align with further observations of the world of our experience.
Practically speaking, we can all go on debating the subjective/objective paradox forever and we can find plenty of intellectual reasons to vote either way, but maybe we should pragmatically accept the responsibility that comes with the freedom to choose, turn away from unresolvable and obfuscating intellectual constructs, and simply vote with our life by choosing to act the way we know we ought to act, in recognition that seeing morality as objective is an axiom that makes a moral life possible.
There, convinced?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Want some cheese with that whine?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
This is really a bizarre series of arguments.
It's like watching a Felini movie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Can come with any measure of cogent intelligent thought to add to the discussion, so personally attack. Not surprised. Typical intellectual cowardice.
I see "intellectual cowardice" is the new "Dunning Kruger Effect".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bella3sp
Delayed response..if that's not it, then please explain what makes skin tone a problem.When you take someones original representation in the case i'm talking about, they're Asian, that is discrimination towards them.Like i've stated, you will most likely not see someone post someone who originally was a black character being turned into a white character. If they did, two of two things would happen:
- Get multiple comments of hate
- Somehow find a way for the video/photo to be taken down
If this was the company, this would be different. They would most likely go down in a 'bad name' or I guess what it's called 'canceled' . Nonetheless this doesn't matter at least mostly for this topic. I'm talking about the artists, not the company making the original character.Now, understand this, it would be considered discrimination towards people of color, wanting the character to become white because 'its better' or 'white people need more representation'. But regardless if you most likely wouldn't hear this, people would definitely get upset. The same thing should apply Black, Asian, etc. While yes not everyone thinks the same, in the end, what is it doing? Still taking away someones representation.This relates to what I have recently seen. The creators who are black-washing characters state 'i'm showing black representation'.But what they don't realize is they are taking away the characters representation.
The question was why you are OK with all changes except skin tone, why does that change bother YOU. How does telling me about how you think it would bother others explain why it bothers you?
I’m serious here, I find this culture war mysterious. I’m an old white guy, this white identity politics is a new thing in my lifetime, and I really don’t understand it. I’m sincerely trying to figure out this thought process, it seems that people can only tell you who they are by telling you what they think about who they aren’t. I just don’t get it. Is it that you are defined by opposition to the “them” of your “us/them” thinking? If “Not them” the answer to the question “Who are you”, then perhaps you should reconsider who you are?
I will tell you that it’s clear to me that people who can’t explain themselves aren’t in control of themselves, if you don’t know why you are doing what you do, it’s probably because somebody else is pulling the strings.
Roger Ailes said he could make Fox news the biggest news network because other networks tell people what to think, and Fox is going to tell them what to feel. He made it very clear that doing so would translate into control and power. I never would have believed that selling outrage would work to control people.
It seems the demagogues own people and those people are OK with being owned because “their” demagogues own “them”. That just isn’t a reason to let someone own us rather than thinking for ourselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Yeah, I am.Difference is, I try to engage in intelligent discussion with others
Is that what you are trying to do, I sorry, but you need to try harder, you just sound like a dumb ass racist whack job.
but the others (minus a few members) lack the requisite intelligence to engage in said discussion.
I see, so the problem is we just aren't smart enough to grasp the deep intelligence of bigotry LOL, I gotta give you this much, you are entertaining as hell LOL.
So when you clowns come out the gate with ad homs, you reap what you sow. Tit for tat.
I love it when you talk dirty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Again, why are you here at DART?You’re not contributing a damn thing.Troll.
You gots to pay me respect cuz I got me a gun LOL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Whether these bullet cause fatal injury is primarily dependent on the actions of the user.Oh yeah, this is where the "responsible gun ownership" mantra kicks in, you guys have been chanting that for decades. Just take a look at the numbers, you guys suck ass at being responsible gun owners.Those numbers are going to need some citations. Because the CDC was coerced into removing ALL the positive data on hood guys with guns taking out the bad buys by a leftist group in order to make it easier for them to lobby gun control laws.
Oh look, it's the right winged whack job conspiracy theorist in his native habitat, the internet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe that's because bans never worked ever on anything. if people really want something and have the means to get it, they will. I'm sure Soros has a few nukes tucked away just in case.
Yeah, he keeps them with the space lasers he uses to start the forect fires in California.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Because there needs to be a better reason to ban it than the fact stupid people think the word semi-automatic means machine gun or some other stupid shit
Drool.
Since you won't admit it, I'll tell you, it's fear, the more afraid you are, the bigger the gun you need to feel like a man.
It's a penis extension, you buy an AR-15 to make your penis bigger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I’m answering the question, you just refuseto listen. We regulate the living hellout of dangerous products, a handful of deaths can get most products banned, weare talking about a product that last year killed 250,000 people globally, 37,000in the US, and you guys seriously want to argue that as far as regulation isconcerned, a gun should be seen as equal to a fucking pillow, its that kind of knee jerknonsense replies that are Pavlovian, that argument has about the sameintellectual content as drooling does.Everyone In This thread is for some gun regulations nice strawman though.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why they need a semiautomatic weapon with a large magazine. besides saying "Freedom, Mom, and Apple Pie", you got an answer>
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Oh pulease, do gun people actually think about what they say or is it all just the NRA's Pavlovian trained dog replies?.First, I'm not a member of the NRA.
You don't have to be, they wrote the scripts for your conditioned responses.
Second, are you likening me to a dog?
I’m likening your conditioned responsesto the conditioned responses of Ivan Pavlov’s dogs, so yeah, indirectly, I suppose I am.
A firearm is a single purpose tool,No it isn't.and that tool is designed to do one and only one thing, kill,It's actually designed to discharge projectiles known as bullets.
Oh please, that’s another lame anddishonest intellectual dodge and you know it. Guns don’t kill people, bullets kill people, is a ridiculous point at best LOL
Whether these bullet cause fatal injury is primarily dependent on the actions of the user.
Oh yeah, this is where the "responsible gun ownership" mantra kicks in, you guys have been chanting that for decades. Just take a look at the numbers, you guys suck ass at being responsible gun owners.
calling it the "ordinary civilian use of firearms" is a lame intellectual dodge of the issue, nothing but a distraction.So, is it your position that ALL USE of firearms is CRIMINAL USE? If so, explain.
No, but in the vast majority of thetime, it is illegal to shoot someone, there are very rare circumstances inwhich it is justified, but saying I get to kill someone if they are trying tokill me is very much an out of the ordinary situation.
Do you seriously believe it shouldn't matter how such a tool is used?Yes. I could kill you with a hammer; a knife; a pen; box cutter; a bat; even a pillow. If capacity to be used in fatal injury must dictate access, then why not ban the aforementioned?
Oh boy, how profound, I’ve never heardthat one before LOL. But hey, I noticedthat nuclear weapons aren’t on your list, is it your position that we shouldn’trestrict access to nukes?
If we have 37,000 pillow deaths this year I can assure you we will take action.
Generally speaking, it is unlawful to kill people,Why does that not dictate accountability as opposed to holding everyone accountable, lawful use or not?
Generally speaking it is unlawful tokill people, and generally speaking, what a gun is designed to do is killpeople, you really can’t connect the dots? Why shouldn’t “accountability” be enough to make nuclear weaponsavailable at Home Depot?
and that's the only thing a firearm doesThat's not the only thing.you really can't connect the dots as to why the vast number of illegal deaths merits consideration?Why does the "vast number" of illegal deaths warrant penalizing LAWFUL USE? You're not answering my question: why does ordinary civilian use of firearms MERIT PENALTY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE CRIMINAL USE OF FIREARMS?
I’m answering the question, you just refuseto listen. We regulate the living hellout of dangerous products, a handful of deaths can get most products banned, weare talking about a product that last year killed 250,000 people globally, 37,000in the US, and you guys seriously want to argue that as far as regulation isconcerned, a gun should be seen as equal to a fucking pillow, its that kind of knee jerknonsense replies that are Pavlovian, that argument has about the sameintellectual content as drooling does.
I'm thinking that trumps the rights of the hobbyist who loses his right to target practice, or hunt,Oh? So there is another purpose when using firearms?
Yes, they can also make otherwise rational intelligent people start incoherently blathering inane nonsense.
or whatever legal use that the gun culture is saying is worth so many thousands of lives.And these hobbyists are setting out in droves killing thousands of people?
Go back and read my sentence again,slowly for comprehension this time, guns are killing thousands of people, andgun people seem to think that is an acceptable price to pay to protect yourtarget shooting hobby, try to pay attention.
Care to explain how you've reached this conclusion (some empirical data would be nice, as well.)
Empiricaldata? Are you actually debating gun controlwhile pretending to be unaware that what the entire conversation is about is gundeaths? Try this, Google gun deaths and lookat any of the twelve million web sites that can enlighten you as to what thegun control is about. I wish you guys could see how utterlymindless the Pavlovian argument looks, the rest of us see it as gun peopledrooling when they hear a bell rung.
The fact is, the real "ordinary civilian use of firearms", the reason people buy them, is they want to have the ability to kill someone,And I presume you've spoken to every individual who has purchased a firearm about their intentions with owning, possessing, and operating said firearm? I have firearms. Do I want to kill? And keep in mind, you know better than I do what I want.
I know what guns are for, the people that buy them know what guns are for, and that’s why they buy them.
Are you saying that people who buy guns don’t know they are for, or just that they don’t know why they buy them?
When you hear that bell I think you are supposed to say we buy the gun to let people know we could kill them if we want to, so don’t make me want to.
In short, it’s a penis extension, it makes you feel manly?
Please wipe the drool off your chin, it’s unsightly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bella3sp
Agreed. The fandom can be good at times, but also somewhat upsetting. The different settings, plot, (added) characters, all that can be cool, yeah. However, changing the original characters skin tone is a bit disappointing.
Why is it that creative license is ok for everything but skin tone, on the surface it looks like bigotry, if that's not it, then please explain what makes skin tone a problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Beethoven's 9th- Ode to Joy
Gag me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Hold my beer Buford, I got me some intellectual discussioning to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I see. So you’re just here to troll. Duly noted.Perhaps the powers that he should consider pulling a polytheistic witch move on you, orogami, and IWantRoselveltAgain. Personally I see absolutely zero contribution to DART coming from either of you. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
You need someone to hate.
You're welcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Black people are coming, run and hide, run and hide!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Why are you here at DART? Seriously. Why!Asking for a friend.
I like watching dumbass racists blather on about thier bigotry and then call it an "intellectual discussion", it just cracks me up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You guys get butt hurt thinking these companies are making political statements that are opposed to your politics, but that is not what they are doing. It's about economics, not politics. They are simply marketing and maximizing revenues, only making economic statements.BWAAAHAAHAA!!!!Tell that to Disney. Their obvious wokeness with their politics, which they have not been ashamed of admitting to, has cost them financially to the point where they have had to lay off thousands of employees. So no, you are wrong. It is about the politics and not the economics. Especially when they are focusing on such a vast minority of consumers.
Get a job.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
Hymn to My Soul - Joe Cocker
Into the Mystic - Van Morrison
Created:
Posted in:
You guys get butt hurt thinking these companies are making political statements that are opposed to your politics, but that is not what they are doing. It's about economics, not politics. They are simply marketing and maximizing revenues, only making economic statements.
The diversity that so terrifies you is here, these companies are exploiting the marketplace, selling to a diverse country.
Go ahead and be butt hurt by your bigotry, but don't try to lay it off in the companies, they are just doing thier job to sell in a diverse marketplace.
This conspiracy image of the political corporate world is pure fantasy, don't any of you guys actually have jobs?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bella3sp
what do you think about black-washing anime characters?
The real question is:
Why do you think about black-washing anime characters?
It's a mystery.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So create government farms with government workers to grow food for government troops.
Yeah, and then they could have a bake sale to pay for everything else. The government is so incredibly effiecient, I'll bet they would make really great telephones, computers, and automobiles too.
The current corporate welfare system isn't sustainable.
But the government making everything themselves is sustainable.
Stealing from the poor to give to the rich can't go on forever.
Hey, that's an idea, they have the best weapons, maybe they can just steal everything they need. It worked with the Native Americans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
LGBT is obviously not an ideology but a way of describing an extrememly diverse group of people who have little in common with one another except a shared oppression and need for civil rights protection.
The word ideology in this context means "boogieman", it's used to elicit fear, and justify bigotry..
Created:
you think not letting the government buy the materials and products they needIf the government "needs" something, create a non-private government department that does it instead of private companies. There is no need for corporate welfare.Tell me why we need corporate welfare again.
I see, so we feed the troops with the food from the government department of grow our own food, and get our telecommunications over at the department of we make phones, and weapons from the Department of Weapons making, the our transportation comes from department of vehicles building, and we build highways with stuff from the department of heavy machinery building, etc, etc, etc
You need to spend money on the corporate world because they happen to the the ones that make the stuff we need to buy. The Federal Government is one of the largest consumers of products from most critical industries, I'm pretty sure the corporate world isn't gonna donate the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of stuff they buy.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
A constitutional amendment to prohibit the government from distributing corporate welfare with tax funds. Taxes may only be spent on government organizations and can never be spent on private organizations.
The Federal government is the largest customer for most industries, you think not letting the goverment buy the materials and products they need is a way to solve the problem of corporate lobbying?
As a follow up to this rule, Any federal taxes levied on private corporations must be applied evenly to all corporations in America with no fear or favor.The only corporate lobbying that will then have a reason for existing will be for business regulations.If the public wants to end ALL corporate lobbying in D.C., then there needs to be a Constitutional amendment prohibiting Congress from regulating private business, either relegating that duty to the states, or to the courts via tort law.
Corporate lobbying the States is better then corporate lobbying the Federal government? At the highest levels of both the corporate world and goverment is about money and influence, you really think you can make greed, relationships and deviousness go away by playing the shell game with the money?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sure, as long as it's done at a gun free venue so those pesky victims don't interfere.
That's the problem, the mere mention of a "gun free venue" makes gun people cry like little bitches.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
😔😔😔
I guess it would be more fun if we get some popcord, sith back, ring a bell, and then watch all the gun people salivate, howl at the moon, and bark at mirrors, that's a hoot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
What exactly is this LGBTQ ideology anyway?
Why does it affect you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hay! Don't shoot the messenger!
But shooting people saves lives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Practically speaking, if gun control can save tens of thousands of lives, I'm thinking that trumps the rights of the hobbyist who loses his right to target practice, or hunt, or whatever legal use that the gun culture is saying is worth so many thousands of lives.And the other side is saying gun ownership can save 100,000+ lives. They are thinking that trumps the rights of the gun grabbers.
Oh yeah, killing people saves lives, that's not a Pavlovian reply, it makes perfect logical sense, originally attributed to Aristotle I think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Why does ordinary civilian use of firearms merit penalty as a consequence of the criminal use of firearms?
Oh pulease, do gun people actually think about what they say or is it all just the NRA's Pavlovian trained dog replies?.
A firearm is a single purpose tool, and that tool is designed to do one and only one thing, kill, calling it the "ordinary civilian use of firearms" is a lame intellectual dodge of the issue, nothing but a distraction.
Do you seriously believe it shouldn't matter how such a tool is used? Generally speaking, it is unlawful to kill people, and that's the only thing a firearm does, you really can't connect the dots as to why the vast number of illegal deaths meritx consideration?
Practically speaking, if gun control can save tens of thousands of lives, I'm thinking that trumps the rights of the hobbyist who loses his right to target practice, or hunt, or whatever legal use that the gun culture is saying is worth so many thousands of lives.
The fact is, the real "ordinary civilian use of firearms", the reason people buy them, is they want to have the ability to kill someone,and that is not a legitamate want that should just be fulfilled without considering thousands and thousands of innocent lives it costs us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
There are an estimated 70,000 defensive gun uses a year. Please provide statistics for accidental gun deaths.
I'm talking Semiautomatic weapons with large magazines, got an example where one was needed to defend, sure, you can use one on a thief, but you don't need one for a theif.
In terms of stats for how often they are used to defend, here are a few:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Comments?I hope he goes to jail and becomes radicalized.
LOL, the whack job sociopath isn't radical enough for you?
Clearly this culture war won't end until somebody starts giving the left-tribe a taste of their own medicine.
Yeah, the only essential ingredient for fascism is victimhood, you think painting yourselves as victims of the meany left will get you your autocracy, you poor poor pitiful autocrat.
I'm talking Lincoln level shit.
Hey, you mean "The Lincoln Project", that's what I'm talking about too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
The problem is it is a strawman for pro gun arguments. Nobody seriously makes it.
Then why are we reading it again and again in these gun threads?
In the above scenario the kids parents and or guardians are at fault for not locking up the gun, and usually when social services find guns in a house irresponsibly handled like this, they remove the child until the home is made safe.
Yeah, the mantra of responsible gun ownership. that's BS and you know it.
I am just glad to know that when I am 90 years old, I don't have to be completely defenseless like the elderly in some other countries.
The statistics are clear, if you own a gun for "protection" it is something like 40 times more likely that the gun will mistakenly kill a friend or loved one than it will ever be used to protect a friend or loved one, and everyone who buys one for protection blathers on about "responsible" gun ownership.
The fact is, owning a gun does not make you and your family safer, it puts you and your family in much greater danger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Smart guns as a technology could one day dominate the market. I have no problem with this either, as a 2A advocate.You can say that we're a bunch of crybabies who never compromise, but all I see is non-stop crying from the left about the fact that we have them, and repeated pushes from the left to increase gun control measures the second we give them any compromise.
What second would that be, specifically, what compromise are you referring to?
If we're going to compromise, we need the left to honor the compromises and stop pushing for more.My point here is, that at the end of the day, you and I could argue endlessly about who's crying and who's unwilling to compromise. None of it will be productive.
The question nobody has even tried to answer is this, why today does anyone need a semiautomatic weapon with a large capacity, the only answers have been buzzwords like "freedom", or the American Revolution, but realitistically, what are you preparing for when you buy one or more ar15s?
The uncompromising attitude is exemplified by the whole situation where the suggestion that maybe you don't need them while at the same time not being able to answer the question as to why you need them in the first place turns you into a crying little bitch. If you don't know why you need one, then why cry like a little bitch at the suggestion that maybe you don't need them? It is a completely irrational gun fetish, and we don't want irrational people owning weapons of mass murder.
I think it makes you feel tough, but I just don't understand how you confuse being a crying little bitch with being tough? We are talking about a weapon of war, only good for one thing, mass murder, it's pretty clear that anyone who thinks they may need to kill a lot of people in a short period of time should not be allowed to get one. It's clear that if you don't know why you need to, then you just want to, and that is the problem, people who just want to kill a lot of people for no reason. We read about unhinged shooters killing a lot of people with these weapons almost daily, and on the other side of this is the fact that I don't think there is a single example of a situation where somebody actually needed one to protect themselves or to maintain their freedom. If you know of one, please direct me to that news story.
The last person that should be able to own a semiautomatic weapon with a large clip is a crying little bitch who can't say why they need the ability to kill a lot of people in a short period of time, they just want to.
Created:
Posted in:
Another first for Trump, one in, more to follow.
Comments?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Most of the mass shootings recently have been by LGBTQ identifying people.
By "most of the mass shootings recently", do you mean one?
Please show us where that assertion came from.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This might be a good compromise.
A compromise? With gun people?
Gun people don't compromise, they cry like little bitches if you even mention semi-automatic weapons with large magazines, and you think they would compromise on smart guns. Cool technology, but get real.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So ban people. Problem solved.
The Republicans are working on it, they are starting with the LGBTQ community, people of color, immigrants, and Jews
Created: