Total posts: 755
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No we haven’t established that, who does or doesn’t pose a threat to society was your argument not mine, nice try taking your talking points and treating them as if they’re mine so I can do the work for you.
Well for better or worse that's what has been implied to be a justification for killing people guilty of severe offenses for the last 10 posts or so. For no other reason has the DP been justified recently.
I feel as if you are telling me what my motivations are for making statements in this argument. However, you do not know why I said what I said and you cannot reasonably infer malicious or dishonest intent from what I've said. I want you to stop getting into the bad things you think I am trying to do and have a good-faith conversation about the topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
No, I'm saying that regardless, the principles will hold because they delineate the capacity of each individual as his/her own sovereign.
What principles? And so you believe that capitalism is the system in which people get used the most? Er....
So this begs: what would be your description of a person being treated as a tool?
Someone's existence or some other property that is substantially significant that is theirs being used as a means to an end when they ideally would not consent to that. That may not be the best definition and I may clarify it if you question it/I think about it more but since I have work to do and I've typed a lot that's what I'll define it as for now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Give me an example of conflicting principles? Individualist ones would be preferable given the subject.
I don't think you understand (if you do there's no point in me giving an individualist principle in particular); I am not saying that you don't have a set of consistent principles (I actually think you do), but I am saying that not all people have multiple principles rather than a single set of totally categorical ones. So, from another argument I was having with Tarik: I believe both in not using people as means to ends and maintaining a functional society. But sometimes people will have to be used to maintain a functional society. So, in that case I will have to assess whether one principle outweighs the other or the other way around, and part of what I'll use to make that judgement will be the circumstances of the situation.
then how is one "incentivized" to "leverage" his or her circumstances against the other?
I could give you the option of accepting terrible conditions because I know that you're extremely poor and you will take what you can get. However, if you have a decent amount of money, I can't use your wealth (or lack thereof) against you because if I give you the conditions I gave the poor version of you you'd just say no to the job. I'm incentivized to do this for a variety of reasons, some of which are honorable (feeding my family), some of which are for the sake of maximizing my profits, but the only thing standing in my way of doing that is concern for my fellow man (which I don't think you believe in outside of not violating the rights of others). I'm not necessarily an evil person for doing it and it might be that I didn't even consider that what I was doing may have been wrong, but the act is not good.
Give me an example of an unacceptable unequal playing field.
Well a playing field can always end up okay if people act ethically within an unequal playing field, but when a rich business owner and a poor worker are in negotiations one of those people typically has a lot more power than the other (usually the rich business owner) and can engage in practices what are favorable to them at the expense of the other (the worker). Really any situation where someone has to accept harmful or horrible circumstances in general is not good. The question is whether it'd be practical or ethical for the state to interfere with that playing field.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
And you know this how?
I elaborated immediately after I said that.
It will from the one you executed, if you cut the head off the snake the snake can’t attack you.
So, if we've established that the justification you propose for killing criminals guilty of capital offenses is that they might hurt someone else in prison ,then, therefore, you are saying that you are willing to kill people who won't kill anyone in prison on the off-chance they do. So you'd be killing people for offenses they would never commit... so that... other people don't get killed.
This quote doesn’t answer the question, cruel and unnecessary are two different concepts.
If something is necessary for the functioning of society, that typically outweighs if it is cruel. If it is not then it often doesn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
It's a matter of principle. Principle is not subject to circumstance. Principle is fundamental.
This is only true assuming that you only take into consideration one principle when deciding whether a situation is ethical or unethical. If I have multiple principles that conflict in a certain circumstance, that circumstance will inform me of how I choose which principle to favor more. You might "feel" right if you have a bunch of absolute principles/categorical imperatives that never conflict with each other, but they don't make your position right.
While circumventing a direct statement, you're arguing that the employer assume responsibility for the unfortunate circumstances of a would-be employee
Not necessarily. He might be in a situation where assuming responsibility for someone else may harm him, his family, some other thing of importance. The point is is that it is regrettable that the situation had to come into existence in the first place.
And if he has shirked this responsibility, he is somehow incentivized to take advantage of this would-be employee's circumstances and use it as leverage in order to compel the would-be employee to accept terms he would otherwise reject had they made an arrangement on an "equal playing field," correct?
Yes, or at least a relatively equal playing field.
No two parties ever enter an arrangement "on an equal playing field."
I don't even know if this is true. Regardless, the bigger problem with your argument is that you're equating all unequal playing fields and implying to me that I have to believe that either they're all acceptable or they're all unacceptable.
You're blaming Capitalism for something over which it couldn't possibly have control.
So you are suggesting that the same problems would arise in any other system?
And I disagree with your ethical views because I do not believe that anyone's owed another's being "nice," or "accommodating," or "willingness to assume their burdens."
I just believe that people are generally not tools. You can simultaneously not use someone as a tool and not be nice, accommodating, or willing to assume their burdens either. I guess, to clarify, that you could say that using someone as a tool and those three other things are inversely proportional, but I don't believe that everyone has to make everyone else's life amazing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then answer it, if the magnitude and probability of harm is high (which I believe it is) does that then ethically justify the death penalty? If your answer is still no then I’m curious as to why.
Well, it isn't. At this point we are talking about criminals who have committed severe offenses that do not have a judgement-clouding mental illness. This is a fraction of a fraction of people and killing them will do next to nothing to prevent prison violence. Meaningful prison reform is probably the only thing that will, and I agree that prison violence is a problem. America clearly does not invest nearly enough in prisoners and those in mental asylums. If you're asking me what my views on the death penalty would be if it did have a large impact, I would have to think about that. It would depend on the impact.
Now this is a classic example of the inconsistency I was alluding to before because it is also cruel to convict a person for a crime they didn’t commit yet you’re still pro jail, why does the cruel argument work for the death penalty but not jail I’ve yet to figure that one out from you
I will quote myself:
I think that imprisonment is necessary for the functioning of a society. I don't think that killing people is
Moving on:
lastly take as long as you need I’ll be waiting with the hopes of a sufficient response, don’t work too hard now.
I hope you mean that in good faith and are not being patronizing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No I’m not but that’s besides the point, fact of the matter is being in jail doesn’t mean you’re no longer a threat period.
No one is ever not a threat at all, in the sense that everyone has the potential to harm. The question is whether the magnitude and probability of that harm is to ethically justifies in harming the potential perpetrators of that harm in certain ways.
But I asked if they made a significant effort would that have any impact on your stance and you still said no, you’ve yet to give me an answer as to why under those circumstances.
It is cruel to kill people when you don't need to.
I will get back to you tomorrow if you respond as I have work to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
My position is so simple but you're making it so much more complicated than it needs to be. I think that imprisonment is necessary for the functioning of a society. I don't think that killing people is, and in addition it is cruel to the human beings experiencing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What kind of things do you think happen in jail?
Does every prisoner who goes to jail harm someone in jail? Are you willing to make that guarantee?
Point already taken but when I took them out of the equation you still had issue with the death penalty so the mental illness argument is just an excuse at this point.
We were in a line of conversation that involved mental illness, so I made a point about mental illness. Also, I've also clarified my position on those who aren't mentally ill and made it clear that since the U.S. does not make a significant effort to determine who is mentally ill (in a way that clouds judgement) and who isn't then the death penalty is unacceptable for everyone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So if murderers, rapists, and pedophiles don’t fit that description then what does?
They're in jail.
Because when you say that without mentioning the reason they’re being executed it’s misleading and fact of the matter is they’re not being executed for being “mentally ill” they’re being executed for being a murderer, rapist, or pedophile.
But a lot of people end up killing people for example because their mental illness skews their perception of reality. Schizophrenia is the most obvious example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
And what do you mean by "that's an understatement"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That's not my only qualm. I oppose the death penalty because I don't believe in killing people who don't pose a threat to society. Can you tell me what is so inconsistent about my position?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Is there such a thing as a sane person that does those heinous acts?
Yes, but you're saying that if there wasn't you'd be okay with killing a bunch of severely mentally ill people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
That doesn't answer my question. I was trying to see if you thought that dying under the aforementioned circumstances would be ethically just or unjust.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
There's also just no good ethical reason to do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why?
Well, for one, the U.S. (Idk much about other countries) doesn't really have a good mechanism to determine who was a sane person that committed a terrible crime and who was severely mentally ill. In other words, the U.S. determines what your punishment should be for a crime mostly on what the consequences of your crime were, not how much agency you had when you committed it.
Also, rapists, murderers, and pedophiles are human beings. If someone's already permanently locked away from society, the state shouldn't be killing its own citizens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
But I don’t think sadolite was in favor of the state killing innocent people, only what he alluded to murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.
That's not what we were talking about. I was explaining to you my ethical views: people, typically, should not be sacrificed for other ends, certain circumstances notwithstanding (one of which is keeping a functional state). Sadolite would get innocent people killed (but I also think that the state killing murderers, rapists, and pedophiles is wrong) for the sake of deterrence rates. That's what I oppose in his statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Assuming that we must harm innocent people then yes it means exactly just that, clearly you disagree so please explain the difference.
The state needs to try people for crimes, and some of the people they convict may be innocent. Use the previous organ donor example I brought up with sadolite. The state should not rip someone's organs out and use those organs to save five people, even if that event would have positive utility. The state must harm some innocents by nature of its existence, but that doesn't give it the moral right to harm innocents in all cases. A similar example: Just because most people will do something that is unethical at some point in their life doesn't mean that they can go on a shooting spree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What do you mean by “some people” innocent people?
Yes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I should rephrase: imprisonment must punish crimes for a government to continue to function. The mass application of this principle will inevitably lead to some false convictions. But just because a state inevitably must harm some people to sustain itself does not mean that the state can do whatever it wants to its citizens in service of some greater benefit. So in situations like these you have to choose between killing capital offenders or not doing so, and the choice is fairly obvious regardless of the preferences of some minority of people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No you can't. Being imprisoned is an inevitable consequence of living under a functioning government. Being killed is not.
It is also important to consider that if evidence ever comes out to suggest your innocence, you can go to trial again. You cannot un-die.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Even after they’ve already been killed?
I'm not sure. I was asking sadolite whether he'd accept his death before it happened.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
This assumes we’re capable of acceptance in death, which doesn’t sound very agnostic to me.
Humans are capable of accepting their death regardless of religion. I don't know what you're getting at.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I'm actually curious: If one day the state arrested you for a crime you didn't commit and then killed you, would you really accept your death as a necessary casualty for deterring crimes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
When the police take me out of my home and make me involuntarily donate all of my organs I will be sure to remember that nothing is perfect and I shouldn't be looking for perfection in life. After all, would it really be realistic to want a 100% guarantee that you will never get hurt or be the victim of anything?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
A. If you kill every rapist, murderer, and pedophile then what if some of the rapists, murderers, and pedophiles you kill are not actually rapists, murderers, and pedophiles?
B. What if the rapists, murderers, and pedophiles are the way they are because they were abused by their parents, never had positive role models/ethical education in their life, etc?
C. Why is it morally acceptable to sacrifice human beings for a crime deterrent that may or may not exist?
D. Why not just sacrifice every person guilty of a major crime for deterrence of future crimes if you despise criminals so much?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
That's good that you say that, unironically. I also appreciate how this site allows people to be themselves, argue about ideas, etc. If it was a little less toxic sometimes it would be even better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
And I will concede to you that when I said corporations are ethically responsible for various harms that occur to workers I probably did not qualify that statement enough, given my last post. Hopefully you still get what I am saying though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I do take into account the circumstances of the employer. But I think you're arguing against capitalism rather than defending it.
Take the two circumstances you listed. We'll reduce it to an employer negotiating someone who is not doing well financially and employees leaving an employer who is not doing well financially.
If I'm an employer employing someone who is not doing well financially, I could be doing well or less well financially. If I'm doing well, I might just be an asshole and want to milk as much money from this guy as I can while still getting him to work for me. If I'm doing poorly, I might need to pay this guy under crappy circumstances to feed my own family. Either way. Although, like you say, we both technically have decision making power in how this arrangement plays out and what ends up happening, I can use the threat of the alternative (that is, what happens to each party if the agreement doesn't work out) to make circumstances that would be ideally undesirable seem desirable in comparison. Whoever has a better/less bad alternative to the deal working out can probably leverage that power more. And I am incentivized to use the threat of the alternative because I need or want more money, usually. Whatever the employer's motivations are to use the employee and vice versa, it is not hard for situations to work out with someone getting used, or the agreement just falling apart altogether. I don't necessarily blame anyone for using anyone else in this situation given that it's so complicated, but it does ask* the question of whether this circumstance ought to have happened in the first place.
Similarly, take the situation of employees leaving an employer who is doing poorly. Because he is doing poorly, they are incentivized to indirectly cause him to do even worse so that they can earn more. In this case and the above case, the employees might just be leaving this guy under a bus for a little more money or desperately be in need of it now that their source of income is all fucked up. I don't know if it would be accurate to say the employees are "using" him in this situation given that what they did was not a premeditated "use" but rather a reaction to circumstance, but either way these people have to fuck over this guy to get paid more. This also happens in the reverse, where companies have to lay people off to stay afloat. Once again, I don't necessarily blame anyone for harming anyone else in this situation given that it's so complicated, but it does ask* the question of whether this circumstance ought to have happened in the first place.
I am far from optimistic or idealistic about what the socialist/non-capitalist alternative would be (I've flirted with socialism but never really committed to it) because that may have a host of other problems. I haven't heard you talk about why you disagree with my ethical views, but hopefully you can see that capitalism at least has some conflict with my views opposing the instrumentalization (if that's a word) of people. Hopefully that makes some sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I'm going to summarize why I believe what I believe here because right now these lines of argument are becoming very large and inefficient. Also, the parts of this conversation where you ask me why people have positive obligations to other people are the most foundational.
Every individual is worthy of moral consideration. Their life, as a whole, cannot be rendered subservient to other people's lives because it's very possible that they only experience their life and then the rest of everything is oblivion. Thus it's vital that they don't spend this small and deeply important period of time as a tool for other people who are equal to them. You may not consider this "individualism", but it at least has a nexus with individualism focused on the individual's interests over the "greater good". This "side-constraint" allows us to create societies where everyone is considered (at least ideally).
Thus, the moral consideration afforded to each person's life makes up a large part of the basis of the obligations that people have towards each other. People, even if they do not "violate" per se individual rights, have obligations not to use them as tools or means to a end and not make it harder for them to leave their own valuable lives. That's why I believe that businesses have obligations to treat people at least fairly well, and why capitalism, as a system that does not impose that standard, is a flawed system. It allows people i.e. corporate entities to use people as means to ends in environmental cases, in cases of employment, etc. These are not the *only* values I have, but it's an important part of the way I think about ethics.
Based on how "individualism" is currently defined, you are probably more of an individualist than me, and so I would be curious why you only care about maintaining contracts, consent, non-aggression, etc. Because that is the difference between our two views.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
How are they empowered under Capitalism to fuck up the planet?
They're allowed to emit dangerous chemicals into the air, the ground, etc. How much they're allowed to do that depends.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
It isn't that I dislike the term. The qualification of individualism or individualists as "extreme" is inapplicable, because individualist principles are not polarized or polarizing. I'm not confused by what you meant. I know what you meant and I'm objecting to it.
If you know what I meant, then you know what I meant by this:
You are correct that if the orthodox intellectual concept of individualism is applied consistently as the only part of one's moral calculus then you oppose compulsory taxation
And so it is obvious then that we are in agreement and should move on from semantics.
If they don't violate individual rights per se, then what is your point? What is the purpose and intention of citing inaction in the context of individualist philosophy?
Like I said:
I am not an individualist in the typical sense because I think there are some circumstances where the use of force to violate individual rights is justified. However, I do agree that people should not exist as means to an end
Part of the driving force of individualism is that it rejects that people's lives are subservient to groups and interests. This is something I tend to agree with.
Side constraints upon action reflect the underlying Kantian principle that individuals are ends and not merely means; they may not be sacrificed or used for the achieving of other endsNozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia (pp. 30-31). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.
What bothers me about individualism is the rigid set of ethical principles it has become. Individualists like you broadly consider any use of initiatory force against an individual as impermissible but completely ignore any maltreatment of individuals that does not employ the obvious use of force (i.e. my business example). People are used in very similar ways if the aforementioned business used initiatory force to gain workers or it didn't, but somehow the former is a great violation of individualist ethics whereas the latter is totally permissible. Individualism now includes far too much and yet excludes far too much as well in a vain attempt to be as objective as possible.
Individualism doesn't prevent people from becoming resources.
Well that's a problem with individualism.
Individualism scrutinizes the interactions and transactions of individuals and objects to arrangements that are coerced or created through duress. If each participant is willing, then what violation has occurred?
One participant in the aforementioned business-worker interaction would ideally not consent to the deal, but they have been put in circumstances where they have to. Consent in an ideal situation is obviously different in circumstance than consent in a non-ideal situation. It is wrong to treat people poorly relative to how they could reasonably be treated and use them as means to ends.
So corporations cause starvation, that is they physically cause blood sugar and insulin levels to drop for extended periods of time by ending a professional arrangement?
Corporations can neglect to treat workers better when they are reasonably able to. That is immoral. They don't cause death physically, but through a chain of events set off by, for example, the ending of a professional arrangement, people end up dying.
So the prospect of any would-be employee who's left to their own devices would be starvation or terrible work conditions in Capitalism?
No, but I imagine that would be the prospects for many of them.
How is the corporation in any of your examples responsible for the "restricted choice" of a prospective employee?
How much choice do you have when you are dead or working under shitty conditions and with shitty payment for doing so? The corporation is responsible for these conditions in that they, as the people with power in the arrangement, chose to make the conditions as terrible as they could without dis-incentivizing people from working for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
So capitalism = corporations fucking up the planet and killing people in a multitude of ways?
That's too simple. However I'd agree that corporations are at least empowered to fuck up the planet under capitalism, and it's not like they never use that power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The qualification "extreme" is neither apropos nor necessary. The logical extension of individualist principles result in the opposition of compulsory taxation as consequence. Sustaining this is not an "extreme" variant of the philosophy.
If you don't like the term extreme, maybe substitute "politically radical". I am hoping that you are, in good faith, confused by what I mean by "extreme" rather than trying to poke holes in the immaterial words I use for its own sake when you know what I'm talking about.
You are correct that if the orthodox intellectual concept of individualism is applied consistently as the only part of one's moral calculus then you oppose compulsory taxation. But few only consider individualism in their moral calculus.
How does inaction as a result of inaction produce harm?
If I am interpreting your question correctly, inaction does not "produce" harm. It allows it to continue, which is unethical. It does not "violate" individual rights per se, like I've said.
How does this result in a violation of one's individual rights?
It does not violate individual rights if you define individual rights to be the use of initiatory force against someone. But it does treat people's lives as means to ends, and preventing people from becoming resources is the part of individualism that is actually good.
And the workers have on control or responsibility in their employment arrangement under this scenario?
I mean, they could go out of a job and starve. But starvation vs. terrible conditions are not good options for the workers to have. In some sense they actually have less of a choice because both options lead to the same fates. If you only treat individualism the way Libertarian philosophers treat it (which is restricted to opposing initiatory force), you fail to account for situations like these where agents can restrict the choice of other agents and do things that are unethical without using initiatory force.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Not to mention that in capitalist societies corporations are always in some way empowered to fuck up the planet and thus can kill people in a multitude of ways
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
This doesn't necessitate the qualification, "extreme," given that the opposition to compulsory taxation is a logical extension of individualist principle.
An extreme position is not necessarily illogical; I respect the viewpoint of people who oppose taxation. But it's fairly clear that more people would support an individualist viewpoint in the organ donor example than in the taxation one.
How does inaction constitute a violation of one's individual rights?
Maybe "violate" is a term specific to actions but both action and inaction can create circumstances where individuals are disregarded or harmed. There is an immoral nexus between action and inaction, though they're not fully equivalent.
And what happens in Capitalism that violates an individual's rights?
Corporations can take advantage of people in numerous ways dependent on their circumstances. Profit is a powerful motive, and when people can use others as gears in a machine to make profits they sometimes will and sometimes will not. For example, if a bunch of employees have no other options and have to work for a company, these people are essentially at the mercy of the organization; they can be worked to death, starved, etc. without any initiatory force being used.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Individualism is a philosophy that favors individuals, typically over collectives. They agree with the preposition that
you cannot violate a person or group of persons rights or liberties for the "overall social good".
^ Some individualist philosophers, like Robert Nozick, would contest that the "overall social good" really exists.
You're probably a little bit of an individualist if you agree that we should not kill two innocent people and then use their organs to save three others. By contrast, a more extreme individualist position is that compulsory taxation, even if it has a low impact on those being taxed, is morally unacceptable regardless of what the tax dollars go to. Those two statements sound (and are) radically different, but they're both extrapolations of the same ethical logic.
I am not an individualist in the typical sense because I think there are some circumstances where the use of force to violate individual rights is justified. However, I do agree that people should not exist as means to an end and I generally believe that people should be compensated for violations of their individual rights. But I believe in protecting people and their civil liberties much more than I care about, say, the extra $100 they have in their wallet. Also, most individualists believe that you can only violate individual rights through the use of force and action, but I believe you can violate individual rights without obvious uses of force (this happens in capitalism) and you can also do it via inaction (i.e. you don't make the minimal effort to pull a guy who's having a seizure out of shallow water where he'll drown).
Good individualist philosophers are Nozick, Kant, and I've heard Hayek and Mises are pretty smart too. Individualism is a very valuable philosophy that you shouldn't dismiss outright like some people on the left do (but conservatives can also be collectivists)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I will get back to you tomorrow on this. I have a very good understanding of individualism and its important to explain concepts like these but I'm very busy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Just because two ideologies are both far-from-center does not mean that they are equally reasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Hello, Based Department?
The opinion in question has to actually be based for them to take the call
Created:
Posted in:
The TOC is the highest realm of american formal debate
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As opposed to morality being derived from Authority of the Majority? There's only one "Party" ramming that line down society's throat right now...
As opposed to morality being anything else. I asked a question. Please use this time to deviate from back-and-forths between America's two annoying political parties
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Right. What I see as consequentialism *could* just be a more "life is a test of virtue and people who don't pass the virtue test can get fucked" kind of attitude.
Created:
Posted in:
When conservatives/libertarians imply that the morality of an action depends purely on it's consequences when they say that it doesn't matter what circumstances you're in when you act, they sound pretty consequentialist. Are they aware of this, is this an unconscious thing, am I wrong, or something else?
Created:
Posted in:
Some of you have really bad attitudes about the nature of people. George Floyd was a human; not an angel, "horrible person", monster, etc
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Not sure. Defund is a difficult word, because it depends on whether you mean "stop funding altogether" (which probably isn't a good idea) or whether you mean ("decrease funding" which Is probably fine).
Created:
Posted in:
No, but stop increasing their funds every year and enough with the military style weapons.
also stop letting them kill people plz thx
Created: