Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

#752 Feb 10 2013 at 4:59 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I feel no one is stupid enough to clean a loaded weapon.
I thought you knew enough never to underestimate how stupid people can be,
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#753 Feb 10 2013 at 2:31 PM Rating: Good
And thats another reason I'm dreading the upcoming Red Sox season.

Our pitching already sucks & will continue to suck for the forcible future. Pedro's Asst. GM, Lackey's coming back, Ortiz is iffy...

Excuse me while i vomit.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#754 Feb 10 2013 at 10:04 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,431 posts
And thats another reason I'm dreading the upcoming Red Sox season.

Can't be worse than last year.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#755 Feb 11 2013 at 12:28 AM Rating: Good
Smash wrote:
Can't be worse than last year.


The offense & defense should be improved, but I don't think the big weaknesses of the pitching rotation & bullpen have been improved enough.

Who knows, maybe Lackey & Buchholtz will be the pitchers we thought they were, but I'm not holding my breath.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#756 Feb 11 2013 at 8:26 AM Rating: Good
******
43,937 posts
At least your season isn't over already like my Mets.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#757 Feb 11 2013 at 8:33 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,471 posts
You guys are too hard on your teams. I like to think my Blue Jays are going to win it all. Then again they are the best team in baseball on paper so...yall ready for a series in the snow...*(may not actually be in the snow because we have a dome.)
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#758 Feb 11 2013 at 8:39 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
The Twinkies can only do better ∴ It will be a good year in baseball.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#759 Feb 11 2013 at 10:01 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,441 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I feel no one is stupid enough to clean a loaded weapon. He clearly just didn't want to be recruited by the Red Sox.


That was my first thought as well. "Why the heck are you cleaning a loaded weapon?"

See, when we argue that we need better gun safety training classes for gun permits, this is the stuff we're talking about.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#760 Feb 11 2013 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
catwho wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I feel no one is stupid enough to clean a loaded weapon. He clearly just didn't want to be recruited by the Red Sox.


That was my first thought as well. "Why the heck are you cleaning a loaded weapon?"

See, when we argue that we need better gun safety training classes for gun permits, this is the stuff we're talking about.

Eh, you can train a monkey to clean a gun. But you can't teach him not to be a monkey.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#761 Feb 11 2013 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
Elinda wrote:
catwho wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I feel no one is stupid enough to clean a loaded weapon. He clearly just didn't want to be recruited by the Red Sox.


That was my first thought as well. "Why the heck are you cleaning a loaded weapon?"

See, when we argue that we need better gun safety training classes for gun permits, this is the stuff we're talking about.

Eh, you can train a monkey to clean a gun. But you can't teach him not to be a monkey.

Depends.

If the monkey shoots its head off trying to clean the gun, is it still considered a monkey?

Edited, Feb 11th 2013 9:10am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#762 Feb 11 2013 at 11:17 AM Rating: Good
******
43,937 posts
The bigger part might.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#763 Feb 11 2013 at 12:35 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Eddie Izzard wrote:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But monkeys do, too (if they've got a gun).
#764 Feb 11 2013 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,999 posts
#765 Feb 11 2013 at 6:15 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,957 posts
I used a gun. It's super effective!
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#766 Feb 11 2013 at 7:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So still no answer to my question? No one has any clue what kind of restrictions we could place on gun ownership in the US that would not violate the 2nd amendment, but which would be effective at preventing these kinds of shootings. But somehow I'm wrong to point out that if you can't do this, perhaps you shouldn't argue that "restricting gun ownership" is the solution. Strange. Very very strange.
There is no way - at all - ever to "prevent" this kind of shooting. Ever.


Yes. I think I said that on like page 2 of this thread.

Quote:
We may find a way to dimish the frequency of occurences, but not eliminate them.


Absolutely. So lets look at choices that would diminish both the frequency of occurrence *and* the number of fatalities per occurrence. That's been my argument all along.

Quote:
Try to rewrite you argument without that proviso.


Um... I'm arguing against that though (perhaps you missed this?). I'm pointing out that when you use a shooting event like Newtown as your rallying cry for more strict gun control, you are in effect taking a "as long as shootings like this can happen still, we need more gun control" argument. I'm the one saying that this is the wrong argument to make because there is no point at which that argument fails because the legal changes you are promoting can never prevent the thing you're using to promote them.

I'm saying we should recognize this fact up front and make our decisions based on a rational examination of the facts rather than an emotional response to events of the day.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#767gbaji, Posted: Feb 11 2013 at 7:53 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) /shrug. Accidents of this type are still incredibly rare compared to the number of gun owners out there though. No one's arguing against the idea that people *should* take gun safety courses, but the question is whether such a thing can be a legal requirement for ownership. Again, it's that pesky 2nd amendment. We don't require people to take a class on responsible speech before allowing them to exercise their 1st amendment rights either. The idea would be that if you place such restrictions you will affect how many people can exercise the right itself.
#768 Feb 11 2013 at 8:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Every time you contemplate some requirement for gun ownership just ask yourself if you'd want the same kind of requirement to be placed on being able to vote.

Registration and a record kept of each time you exercise the right? You're only able to own a gun once every couple years or so?

Well, okay. You said it, not me.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#769 Feb 11 2013 at 10:24 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
gbaji wrote:
Again, it's that pesky 2nd amendment.
Rational examination of it would show that a simple safety course is in line with being a well regulated gun owner. But no, keep bringing those emotional and irrational arguments.

Edited, Feb 11th 2013 11:25pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#770 Feb 11 2013 at 11:46 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,581 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Registration and a record kept of each time you exercise the right? You're only able to own a gun once every couple years or so?

Treating guns likes votes? Bold move for someone from Illinois.
#771 Feb 11 2013 at 11:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Is this going to be about zombies with firearms again?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#772 Feb 12 2013 at 12:33 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Is this going to be about zombies with firearms again?

#773 Feb 12 2013 at 4:37 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,999 posts
Allegory wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Registration and a record kept of each time you exercise the right? You're only able to own a gun once every couple years or so?

Treating guns likes votes? Bold move for someone from Illinois.


How about we allow people to use guns to vote?

No more hanging chads!
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#774 Feb 12 2013 at 8:38 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
How about we allow people to use guns to vote?
Oh sure, and then it'd be news story after news story from California about how they shot the wrong candidate.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#775 Feb 12 2013 at 9:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,431 posts

/shrug. Accidents of this type are still incredibly rare compared to the number of gun owners out there though.


I'd say "relatively" rare. 600ish people a year are killed in gun accidents. While a small number in absolute terms, it's higher per capita than those killed in archery accidents or pretty much all other non vehicle sporting related deaths.

Please notice I posted "per capita" before you give into "ahah! but there are way more guns than bows!" or whatever. I know your first instinct is to assume you're being manipulated by statistics in some obvious fashion, but trust me, it's not obvious when I do it.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#776 Feb 12 2013 at 2:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Every time you contemplate some requirement for gun ownership just ask yourself if you'd want the same kind of requirement to be placed on being able to vote.

Registration and a record kept of each time you exercise the right?


Sure. There's not a lot of resistance against reasonable requirements to prove who you are and that you are not currently denied the right to own a gun (by being a felon or declared mentally incompetent) when purchasing a firearm. Contrast to the massive resistance on the left against any checks for voter registration. Similarly, no one has a problem with having to prove you are the legal owner of a firearm if you should use it in some way, or that you're legally allowed to carry it (concealed or otherwise) if asked to do so while on a public street, yet asking a voter to produce any form of identification to show that they're the guy who they're claiming to be when voting is a gross violation of their rights.

Quote:
You're only able to own a gun once every couple years or so?


Not comparable. You're legally allowed to vote in any and every election that comes along. A better comparison would be that you're limited to how many elections you can vote in over a period of time (analogous to limits on how many guns one may own, or how many bullets in a magazine). Or we could say that you're only allowed to vote in a limited number of types of elections (so either local, or state, or federal, but not all). Or votes must all be cast for people whose names start with the same letter, or have the same number of letters in their names, or any of a number of other silly and useless cosmetic differences.


Quote:
Well, okay. You said it, not me.


Yes, I did. Now go look at all the proposed gun control ideas out there and compare to their equivalents if we were talking about voting rights. You're not allowed to vote if you live in a household with someone who's a felon or mentally incompetent. You're not allowed to vote if you haven't passed an 8 hour course and been granted a license. I could go down the whole list of proposals if you want, but most of them are pretty darn restrictive.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#777 Feb 12 2013 at 3:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Again, it's that pesky 2nd amendment.
Rational examination of it would show that a simple safety course is in line with being a well regulated gun owner. But no, keep bringing those emotional and irrational arguments.


Similar regulations on voting would be called voter suppression of the poor and the ACLU would be all over the case. Again, the issue isn't about whether people should take a firearms safety course, but whether the government should require it as a prerequisite to owning a firearm. Doubly so if the cost is borne by the person. Something that seems quite reasonable to you and I can also be used as a means of inhibiting people's rights simply by making the cost or time or hoops required difficult enough to deter people from bothering.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#778 Feb 12 2013 at 3:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sure. There's not a lot of resistance against reasonable requirements to prove who you are and that you are not currently denied the right to own a gun (by being a felon or declared mentally incompetent) when purchasing a firearm.

There's a crapload of resistance against registration of all firearms, publicly accessible lists of any time you've purchased a firearm, etc. However, you're required to register to vote and voting records are all public record.

Maybe you should pay more attention to what your folks are howling about.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#779 Feb 12 2013 at 3:09 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
gbaji wrote:
Similar regulations on voting would be called voter suppression of the poor and the ACLU would be all over the case.
Except that voting isn't a tool to kill, but hey this is your irrational and emotionally charged tangent so you keep telling yourself they're similar in any way possible. I bet it helps stem the tears at night.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#780 Feb 12 2013 at 3:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Similar regulations on voting would be called voter suppression of the poor and the ACLU would be all over the case.
Except that voting isn't a tool to kill, but hey this is your irrational and emotionally charged tangent so you keep telling yourself they're similar in any way possible. I bet it helps stem the tears at night.

Every time we vote to cut medicare, we vote to kill a senior citizen! Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#781 Feb 12 2013 at 3:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, yeah. the two aren't comparable at all but it's still funny to poke holes in Gbaji's moronic comparison even within its framework.

I guess the lack of resistance to required registration of all firearms and public records of all purchases is why the NRA isn't fighting tooth and nail to keep those private sales and gun shows going. I mean, they're good enough for voting so they're good enough for the NRA! Yay, liberty!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#782 Feb 12 2013 at 3:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Registration and a record kept of each time you exercise the right? You're only able to own a gun once every couple years or so?

Treating guns likes votes? Bold move for someone from Illinois.


How about we allow people to use guns to vote?


Votes are a substitute for weapons and civil war. Please tell me you understand this? The default means of determining new leadership is for each potential leader to gather his supporters and take control. If it's contested, his side fights with the other guys side until a winner is determined. Hereditary rule is one method of determining new leadership in a more civilized manner and without this potential bloodshed (although that still didn't always work). Elections are another method.

So yeah, in our system of government, votes are essentially a stand in for guns and bullets. We fight a civil war every election, only we do it by writing names on pieces of paper instead of shooting at each other.

Quote:
No more hanging chads!


Exactly. You do realize you're just a polite convention away from being shot by people who disagree with you politically, right? We build up that convention and place great store in it, but it's important to realize what we're really doing when we vote. Part of the rationale behind the 2nd amendment is that if those conventions should fail "the people" can always enforce it via actual force instead of a simulation in the form of an election. Take away that ability and elections and votes become just an empty convention with nothing behind them. In that situation, the government can ignore the people with impunity because their pieces of paper don't have any actual power if those in power choose not to honor them.


So yes, guns should be treated like votes. Because in terms of civil society, that's exactly what they represent.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#783 Feb 12 2013 at 3:17 PM Rating: Good
******
43,937 posts
gbaji wrote:
So yeah, in our system of government, votes are essentially a stand in for guns and bullets.
Fun fact: We don't let people vote on whether we're going to shoot people in other countries. So you're for strict regulations and the limiting of arms in civilian hands now?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#784 Feb 12 2013 at 3:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
We fight a civil war every election, only we do it by writing names on pieces of paper instead of shooting at each other.

This explains why the South keeps losing. And to a Negro!
Quote:
So yes, guns should be treated like votes. Because in terms of civil society, that's exactly what they represent.

Really, gunshots would be votes. Except your tortured analogy as you scramble for some "freedom!" high ground is already dumb enough.

Edited, Feb 12th 2013 3:19pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#785 Feb 12 2013 at 3:20 PM Rating: Excellent
**
585 posts
Last time I check a stolen vote didn't shoot up a grade school.
____________________________
.
#786 Feb 12 2013 at 3:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
gbaji wrote:
So yeah, in our system of government, votes are essentially a stand in for guns and bullets. We fight a civil war every election, only we do it by writing names on pieces of paper instead of shooting at each other.


Which can be extremely annoying to those of us west of the Mississippi. Seriously it's been 150 years, move on people. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#787 Feb 12 2013 at 3:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So yeah, in our system of government, votes are essentially a stand in for guns and bullets.
Fun fact: We don't let people vote on whether we're going to shoot people in other countries. So you're for strict regulations and the limiting of arms in civilian hands now?


We vote to determine who represents us in our government. We vote to determine which leader gets to sit in a position of power, and which doesn't. It is a direct substitute for two guys gathering their followers and fighting for control. BTW, this is what we were seeing in Iraq with the faction fighting. I said then that this wasn't an indication of democracy failing, but simply a different form. Democracy occurs when those factions realize that the outcomes are going to be the same whether their followers fight using weapons, or fight using votes. But one results in a lot fewer people dying, which tends to appeal to all sides of the conflict.

The flip side is true as well though. Democracy fails when the outcome will be different if their followers fight using weapons rather than with votes.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#788 Feb 12 2013 at 3:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
On the other hand, just as each person gets one vote per cycle, I think it's again fair that they only get one gun. What if I'm trying to "vote" at someone and he pulls out a "vote-stick" in each hand?! Is Gbaji in favor of multiple votes per person!?! As many votes as you can afford to buy--- well, ok. He probably is. But still...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#789 Feb 12 2013 at 3:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Democracy occurs when those factions realize that the outcomes are going to be the same whether their followers fight using weapons, or fight using votes.

Gbaji said it, not me: Democrats are much better at armed combat than Republicans.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#790 Feb 12 2013 at 3:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
So yes, guns should be treated like votes. Because in terms of civil society, that's exactly what they represent.

Really, gunshots would be votes. Except your tortured analogy as you scramble for some "freedom!" high ground is already dumb enough.


No. Each person, armed with a gun (weapon of the time really), fights for his side and counts as one person fighting for his side. Each person, armed with a vote, fights for his side and counts as one person fighting for his side. Unless you think that in wars, each person just fires one shot at the other side and then goes home?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#791 Feb 12 2013 at 3:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Unless you think that in wars, each person just fires one shot at the other side and then goes home?

Maybe you don't understand how voting works.

Or, more accurately, maybe you're clinging to an asinine analogy instead of quietly backing yourself out of it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#792 Feb 12 2013 at 3:27 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
I am so pleased with the direction this thread is going in.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#793 Feb 12 2013 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Seriously. Gbaji needs a radio show. I'd totally listen.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#794 Feb 12 2013 at 3:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's also possible that Gbaji has no clue how war works and actually think that if your army has 100 guys and the other guy's army has 99 guys, you'll win 100% of the time.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#795 Feb 12 2013 at 3:37 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
I'm still waiting for him to show us some data of someone filling in the circle at the voting booth has resulted in someone's death, but I'm sure he thinks we forgot that's what his argument was meant to counter. We wouldn't want any rational examination of data when you can wax patriotic, which is in no way emotional at all.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#796 Feb 12 2013 at 3:44 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I'm still waiting for him to show us some data of someone filling in the circle at the voting booth has resulted in someone's death, but I'm sure he thinks we forgot that's what his argument was meant to counter. We wouldn't want any rational examination of data when you can wax patriotic, which is in no way emotional at all.


I'm still waiting for him to counter my list to his challenge that he provided.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#797 Feb 12 2013 at 7:06 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,431 posts

This explains why the South keeps losing. And to a Negro!


Post of the Year so far!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#798 Feb 12 2013 at 7:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It's also possible that Gbaji has no clue how war works and actually think that if your army has 100 guys and the other guy's army has 99 guys, you'll win 100% of the time.


And yet, you've never questioned why "paper covers rock" means you have to empty the dishwasher. It's like mental disconnect day in here or something.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#799 Feb 12 2013 at 7:41 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's like mental disconnect day in here or something.
I wonder what that looks like from your point of view?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#800 Feb 12 2013 at 7:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's like mental disconnect day in here or something.

Yup.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#801gbaji, Posted: Feb 12 2013 at 8:15 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You guys seriously don't understand that votes are a replacement for violent conflict as a means of deciding who leads us? That's bizarre. It's bizarre that so many of you don't know this, but it's even more bizarre that when exposed to the idea you reject it out of hand, not because it isn't a monumentally obvious observation about the societal function of voting, but because you don't like the implication. There's a fallacy there (I don't believe something is true because I don't want it to be true).
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 53 All times are in CDT
Debalic, Demea, Kavekkk, Anonymous Guests (50)