ravensjt

Do you not consider doing the "right" thing and doing things that benefit society as being your best you?

Name me one distinct feature a person with black skin has that a person with white skin cannot possibly have.

There are distinct differences between most:

1. Blacks

2. whites

3. Asians

4. American Indians/Alaskans 

5. Pacific Islanders/Hawaiians

And you believe this because it has utility for you in living as the best possible you?

If you believe the concept of separate human races exist you are racist. If you believe races exist on the basis of color, you are racist.

If you believe races exist, but there are no differences at all between races, then you actually do not believe in the concept of separate races, congratulations, you are not a racist.

If you are a race denier, you cannot be a racist.

One day all people will embrace science and realize there are no multiple races of humans. Colorism on the other hand, will be much harder to eradicate from society. Debunking the multiple race theory is a start.

Being colorblind not only makes you not a racist, but also not a colorist, which is the highest moral position to strive for in society.

I don't care for labels myself. But having a blanket label of being a free thinker / centrist is just like any other label. As you have noticed, i'm not trying to focus on it anymore bc i don't care what you are. There are certain labels that are easily defined that most people will point to in conversation. It's not that i am saying you are that label... just what things sound like so i can be better informed of your stance. So really who cares... all i am saying is being a label no one knows how to define is deceptive in nature... there is nothing wrong / right about that... it just is. Actually, i personally would like a more deceptive label ... i just guessed you might to. 

Bc again you use propaganda numbers to try and sway... why wouldn't you bring up "well this only has to do with deaths" ... you are being deceptive.

Now you are saying the most important role of weapons is impossible to know and through it out? If millions of people are saved due to these uses... would you change your stance?

 How many people do you think were saved from a criminal bc said criminal saw a gun on someone's waist?

Plus.. the 2.5 million defensive uses study the cdc did is mainly these kinds of defensive uses so there is a study.

You think i should just trust you that things will get better without guns? You think every American should trust your confidence nothing will happen? It's silly, bc you actually have no proof less guns equals less violence any more than i can bring up Vermont.

I never said free thinker is deceptive although thinking about it now it sorta is bc how do you define it? You can easily flip flop on issues saying you are left or right or anything really. Even centrist i would say is deceptive. It's just how it is when you don't have a clear defined position that people could point to. If someone says they are right, you know the issues they probably believe. It would be harder if someone's like i'm a free thinker... you could believe in anything. It's deceptive in nature. I don't mean in a bad way... you just have to define your beliefs. You can't say i'm a free thinker and expect people to know what you believe

I use NRA tactics you use leftist propaganda. At least with me, i already believed what the NRA says in certain issues before seeing it there and this is one of them. They use the 2.5 million self defensive gun uses. The most liberal put it down at least around 100,000. I think they are both wrong bc i believe it is over 3 million. How can i get that number? Bc i don't define it as "Used a gun to KILL"...

Obviously the number of people using a gun to "kill" another person is low... i would agree that doesn't happen often but it does happen and those people were saved. I define it as "defensive" or "deterrence" gun use. How many people do you think were saved from a criminal bc said criminal saw a gun on someone's waist? How many people do you think were saved bc they pulled a gun on a criminal? How many homes do you think were saved from robbers bc the person thought "they might have a gun."? How many women were saved from a criminal either brandishing or showing off a gun on their waist? I put that number above or right at 3 million a year

Our violent crime will shot through the roof without the second amendment, besides other dangerous situations it will leave us in.  If you think otherwise you are deluded.  

Hari was here briefly too but you can guess what happened to him.

Saw you on the gun control thread and you were holding your own. Impressed.

Yeah, but more than 20 posts a day to the same thread was indistinguishable from spam. At that rate, he couldn't answer his posts so obviously did not post them for debate but as spam.

Why blame the dead when there are living racists today judging people's character on the basis of skin tone? In this case, because the politician speaking has too light a shade of skin tone?  Kinda like Tiger Woods

Actually he was doing quite well (for bully) until willows confused him into thinking he was at DDO again. I was surprised he was able to last that long.

I think without another troll influencing him, being a normal poster will eventually become how he is and not an act. It is sad though.

Simply making the accusation makes the accusers look racist.

Obviously if a black skin type person said it you would think it's just fine. It's only when someone has a white skin birth defect that the actual meaning of the word changes.

You specifically gave a number of people dying and sad i must not care... so you can't just tuck tail and say you didn't imply that of me. And, i am not a mind reader... i am judging you off what you say and i didn't know you are a full gun ban type until you just said it here. You should be straight forward about that in the beginning since you are a fringe type of belief people don't assume first. 

It's original intent was to have an armed citizenry to fight injustice foreign or domestic. But i guess i digress if you don't want to talk about it. I never heard you say you want a full gun ban. Thank for telling me i am smart enough to start deducing it. 

Free thinker or not... you fall under a specific group. It is just words to define what type of policy you are giving. The left's thinking is to ban guns, so you have a leftist view on guns. Who cares... i call myself centrist bc that is what best defines free thinking... it's still a position people will understand when i say it. When you say "free thinker" no one knows where you stand until you start talking... if you like being a little deceptive as your style of getting information... whatever, that's cool with me.

Where is your proof that it turns into the wild west if there are no GFZ? Vermont would be a slap in the face to your logic above. What we know is that in 1996 the GFZ act was passed. What we also know is things like school shootings rocketed. Could it be a correlation? I think it is, although not a cause, but a correlation. When you have a sign that no one can enforce.. it is useless. At the very least, have armed guards protect every place that is a GFZ... at least. 

You know what the irony to all this is... i think it is people like you that are causing the deaths of so many people. Get rid of guns, you are killing people bc more would die, get raped, robbed, if they can't protect themselves. More kids dead in schools bc there is no one to protect them, or they can't protect themselves. Every policy you are proposing will lead to more death than the alternative. Bc guns are a deterrent to criminals. Without them... it would likely look a lot like our neighbors in central and south america.

"Biological interventions"? Are we talkin' anaphrodisiacs? 

So you've sat down and talked with some sex offenders in a counsel capacity? What's that like. Is there any acknowledgment at all that they knew it was wrong, or are they just totally remorseless and vacant of empathy?

of course you are correct criminals don't follow laws hence the term.  Gun free zones in their current definition and state tend to be horribly inadequate.  The issue I have with them is hanging up a sign is useless and meaning less.  If you aren't going to put in actual security then you shouldn't attempt to claim it as a "gun free zone"  Have a do not enter sign isn't much use if the door isn't locked.  I know you hate analogies but.....

as far as holding the seller or owner liable, I'm glad  you brought that up.  In the future for any vehicle or gun I may sell I'll be adding a waiver and indemnifier clause to all bills of sale.  Afaik there's no liability or restriction or prohibition to sell a car to someone with many dui's, and the seller is not responsible should they commit more or injuries with the car.

would you support a tax payer funded store that acts as a used gun shop which would require background checks?  Let's say I want to sell a gun, I give it to them and they sell it for what I'm asking, they do the background check on the purchaser and I get my money.  While pawn shops and gun stores do this, they take a pretty good chunk of the money.  But since this would be tax payer funded it would be a very nominal fee.  This could be done rather inexpensively if it's an online store, mostly, and the physical location is at a local police station (just a random thought)

Now you are just forcing something to be wrong by playing word games. Do you not get the implications of banning something that doesn't exist? Assault rifles by definition are already banned or restricted greatly. What you are talking about is banning rifles... which account for only 2% of gun deaths. That is nonsensical. You are trying to put the burden of "i don't care who dies on me" ... yes i do. That is why it is nonsensical. If you want to ban a gun that will make a difference, you ban handguns that account for up to the 80% tile worth of gun violence, but therein lies your ignorance of the implications of your words... you are talking about "gun bans" and you don't even know it.

Unlike you, i am protesting dumb law. One, i do not want weapons banned bc i believe in the second amendment. And two, i am protesting doing stupid laws that won't fix anything in a quantifiable way. The laws that will have the most impact on gun violence aren't gun-control issues. Unless of course, you want to start banning weapons. Where do you stop. You ban rifles, you will notice people using shotguns. You ban shotguns, you will notice people using handguns. You ban bullets, all we are left with is 22 caliber BB guns. Your solution is a gun ban... so be honest about that. 

And to sides... the side you are on is correlative with the left's proposals on gun issues. I have no idea if you are left, i myself am a centrist. So, i do believe in "reasonable" gun-control laws. For instance, universal background checks. Other than that however, i am for enforcing the laws we have, and strengthening other non-gun control related laws. Getting rid of gun free zones would be one start. To do things that make a difference instead of dreaming of an entire gun ban. You can hold that belief if you want, but again, it is an ignorant belief that won't fix anything bc it won't happen and you shouldn't want it to happen as a free 

That's not what I claimed. I claimed women who have abusive husbands are safer if the woman owns a gun than an unarmed women with an abusive husband.

I could ask you the same thing... why are you so hell bent on banning assault rifles that only account for 2% of gun deaths? It makes no sense. Not only is it one of my favorite guns, it is also my preferred choice of weapon to protect myself with. In heated moments, my aim won't suffer and i don't have to worry about missing like i do with a handgun. It is my weapon of choice. You want to take that away from me and others that feel the same. Plus, all in all, it isn't logical at all since there is no such thing as "assault rifles" which means you won't be banning anything. It will not help, it will not make a difference banning "A-Rifles." It's a feel good law for the left and to get votes... it is pure ignorance of weapons that keeps your side blind to any lie you hear to get you to vote left.

Maybe it is Karl Malone shipping to the inner cities for profit, like he doesn't have enough money as it is.  Or maybe they have nothing to do with it, which I would think is the case.  Maybe more people of color need to apply, or do you think they discriminate?  I highly doubt it.  

Remember, a lot of hunters and people that do this kind of thing for sport are white, so it makes sense.

How many times is it more likely the wife will kill the wife beater if she has a gun? I'm  guessing it's probably more than 10 times considering how physically frail women are.

That's not the stat I am looking for. I am looking for the rates of unarmed battered wives killing their husband vs armed wives killing their abusive husbands.

How many times is it more likely the wife will kill the wife beater if she has a gun? I'm  guessing it's probably more than 10 times considering how physically frail women are.

it would be logical perhaps if the focus and urgency was placed on fighting poverty and education rather than gun control and assault weapons.  You know Clinton's assault ban was studied and determined it made no statistical difference yet so many still want to focus on it, which obviously takes away focus on things that can actually be of benefit.  How long has the more gun control argument been going on?  This has been taking center stage for a very long time far above and beyond any talk of fighting poverty and improving education.  Yet you still want to travel down that road?  That doesn't seem logical.

He was a valued member who added a little pizazz to the forums.

How do you know they are all elder white males?  

Reply

No you would save a few lives, but guns have a beneficial purpose to society outside of the discussion. Same with cars.

and cmon, you're not going to pull the "black skin race person has no agency when the white devil gives him bad stuff" card are you?

So yes... maybe if we focused on the poverty in urban cities... that would be more productive than banning a non-existent "assault rifle" ... Gun control is mainly for political votes and is just as useless as deporting millions of black Americans to fix a problem. That is what gun control sounds like to me. Just as dumb as my comment.  But my comment will at least bring down gun violence by 70% lol. 

FBI gun violence report published June 2015 showed that, excluding suicides, 68% of ALL gun-related crimes where carried out by black males between the ages of 14 and 26. If you want to make the biggest impact to overall gun crime, deport those men

Saves lives at what cost? We could save alot of lives if we stopped people from reproducing too...but we don't.

Guns have a beneficial role to play in society, and so does reproduction.

How is this not an argument from ignorance? 

I think you mean it is untenable to make a positive claim about the existence or nonexistence of "god like" beings of any kind although I would be more apt to believe in physical beings with advanced technology (since I have observed both physical beings and technology) than any supernatural or spiritual being (since I have never 9bserved a spirit or anything supernatural.

"Seem godlike" is a little vague. My cellphone and my car might make me seem godlike to someone from the 1800s. Also I have no idea how to asighn a probability on how likely it is that any extraterrestrial intelligence even exists. 

Discount is perhaps a strong term. Better to say I see no reason to believe in such a being.

Didn't most of the "Thug Life" mentality die off in the 90's?  I don't hear much gangsta rap/music anymore, at least not to the extent of glorifying killing. Or is it that there is so much more non main stream music out there that it just doesn't reach my ears?  Like Tupac, Biggie, NWA and the like?

I do not claim to have evidence for or against the idea that some god(s) exist. This thread is merely asking about god claims of a particular nature.

This is a serious question and not meant as a jab, though of course you are under no obligation to answer whether you have an answer or not.

Just bc he was killed by a black makes the music something that leads to blacks killing blacks? That's your logic? That makes no sense.

The guy could have listened to death metal..

you are surely making a mistake. Black on black crime is societal... has little to do with music. 

the music writers apparently, gives them something to write about.  there is a demand for this music, so they are supplying it.

don't you think there must be some kind of entertainment value to those who listen to it?  Finding out why could help you understand better right?

so you don't think this music might make them feel powerful, special, unique or different from the average?

let me ask you this, this type of music, is it getting more popular, is it getting more extreme?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6LQgGX8PCQ&index=14&list=LLEgeFOdlWm7FygxFeVgoo9w

Then there is this. This video perfectly portray's what this music does. What is in one's mind. It makes you feel invincible... like you can conquer anyone or anything. Therefore, the music isn't directed only at black people... it is directed at the world. It pumps you up. The violence isn't only directed one way... it is directed to all. 

what kind of emotion or feeling doe this music that glorifies black death bring?  That's what you have to figure out imo.

I'm not sure how or why this would be entertaining.

So the outrage is justified at why this statue was allowed to remain. The only troubling thing is that the removal was done by a public mob instead of relying on the government to do the right thing. The government, run mostly by Democrats, had so much red tape that it was unable to actually execute the will of the people. That bodes really poorly for confidence in the government to actually have the authority to  take care of the public, forget about the will or the competence of the government to do it