Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Might as well misogynyFollow

#177 Jun 03 2014 at 3:48 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:


You know Kuwoobie, I don't think I've ever seen you write more than one paragraph in a single post? Are you too stupid to string together more than a few sentences or are just too lazy to raise you lard filled limb?


Nope. I never write more than that, ever. You got me.

Oh, and +1.


Once you do, people will just complain that you're writing too much.
#178 Jun 03 2014 at 5:36 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
angrymnk wrote:

I think we all know what needs to be done..
Ban Captain Crunch.

Who made him a captain anyways?!
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#179 Jun 03 2014 at 5:40 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Almalieque wrote:


Once you do, people will just complain that you're writing too much.
Are you complaining about complainers.

The goal is to **** off an equal number on either side of any particular issue. Once you find that sweet spot you'll be in Forum Nirvana: Where trolls can't reach, socks fall down and spammers are magically transformed into coat-racks.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#180 Jun 03 2014 at 6:07 AM Rating: Good
Elinda wrote:
angrymnk wrote:

I think we all know what needs to be done..
Ban Captain Crunch.

Who made him a captain anyways?!


Battlefield commission, back in 'Nam. Captain Crunch is made from condensed agent orange.
#181 Jun 03 2014 at 7:15 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Breakfast is hell.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#182 Jun 03 2014 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like... breakfast.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#183 Jun 03 2014 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Breakfast is hell.

I love the smell of Bacon in the morning.

Edit - I'm going with, "great minds think alike"

Edited, Jun 3rd 2014 3:34pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#184 Jun 03 2014 at 6:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Oh. And also illustrating why this is a poor approach to take. No one seems to be able to agree, so the only thing we accomplish by going with the "more gun control" route appear to be to create more argument. Which, if your objective is solely political, works great. If your objective is to actually find real workable solutions to the issue of crazies committing mass shootings, it's not so great at all.


That's an absurd position to take since it's applicable to just about every topic one can think of. Not every person holds the same beliefs on when and how capital punishment should be executed, how and when an abortion can take place, who and how people should be granted legal residency/citizenship, etc.


No. It's applicable to only those issue where there is a direct constitutional amendment that addresses it. If, for example, the 2nd amendment said something like "Living a full and complete life being necessary for free people to prosper, the right to life shall not be infringed by any form of capital punishment", then anyone arguing that "we could deter crime if we introduced capital punishment" would be making a useless argument unless they were willing to repeal that amendment. Get it? In this case, the constitution grants a very clear right for each individual to keep and bear arms. Therefore, any approach to violent crime that rests on trying to prevent people from owning arms is doomed to failure unless it includes an assumed repeal of the 2nd amendment.

You will run afoul of that amendment long before you can reduce the availability of firearms sufficiently to affect these sorts of crime. The criminal will simply adjust to whatever access he does have and move forward. The telling point in this case was a factoid that most people probably missed. He had 41 10 round magazines in his car. The number 41 isn't relevant. The number 10 is. That's the capacity we reduced magazines to, for the exact reason of trying to prevent mass shootings. As I've mentioned many times in the past, people will just carry more magazines of the reduced capacity. Chasing after capacity restrictions, and minor cosmetic restrictions can't work. Only repealing the 2nd amendment would work. And that's not something that's going to happen. Ergo, we should be looking in a different direction.


xantav wrote:
It seems that both sides want to turn a less guns argument into a no guns argument. One is saying they want no guns, the other is using fear that less guns now will mean no guns in the future.


Um... Because the side saying they want no guns are the ones arguing for "less guns now". It's not really an unfounded fear to say that when a person like Smash says "let's make it harder for people to buy, own, or carry firearms", that it's a stepping stone to their real objective, which is "no guns". No amount of the gun control advocate insisting that he just wants to reduce gun ownership "a little bit" really works when the same persons argument for that reduction rests on a "no guns" assumption. He's not arguing that X rate of gun ownership causes violence, or that Y magazine sizes does, or Z length waiting periods. The argument is that "guns cause violence". Period. That argument doesn't have a boundary that stops short of "no guns".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#185 Jun 03 2014 at 6:53 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Um... Because the side saying they want no guns are the ones arguing for "less guns now". It's not really an unfounded fear to say that when a person like Smash says "let's make it harder for people to buy, own, or carry firearms", that it's a stepping stone to their real objective, which is "no guns". No amount of the gun control advocate insisting that he just wants to reduce gun ownership "a little bit" really works when the same persons argument for that reduction rests on a "no guns" assumption. He's not arguing that X rate of gun ownership causes violence, or that Y magazine sizes does, or Z length waiting periods. The argument is that "guns cause violence".


No, don't be silly, that's not the argument. That's a goofy straw man argument. The argument is that "guns make it far easier to harm people". Which is pretty much stipulated given the entire purpose of firearms is to propel projectiles into things, primarily other people. If the effect we wanted to lessen was "lifting things up very high" it wouldn't be silly to say "hey, maybe allow less cranes, the only thing they really do is lift things very high" To be clear, I'm not in favor of "no guns". I am in favor of "no handguns" and "no magazines larger than 1". If you want to defend yourself, and it's really that important, carry a shotgun or a bolt action rifle. The real problem is the idea that somehow there's a "need" for anyone to have 19 bullets in a semi-auto to feel "safe". I mean, even the guy with the tiniest **** would feel powerful, pardon me,"safe" with an 8 gauge.
____________________________
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#186 Jun 03 2014 at 7:00 PM Rating: Good
I'm in favour of no guns. Anyone with a gun should be shot.
#187 Jun 03 2014 at 7:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
No amount of the gun control advocate insisting that he just wants to reduce gun ownership "a little bit" really works when the same persons argument for that reduction rests on a "no guns" assumption. He's not arguing that X rate of gun ownership causes violence, or that Y magazine sizes does, or Z length waiting periods. The argument is that "guns cause violence".

No, don't be silly, that's not the argument. That's a goofy straw man argument. The argument is that "guns make it far easier to harm people".



Quote:
To be clear, I'm not in favor of "no guns". I am in favor of "no handguns" and "no magazines larger than 1". If you want to defend yourself, and it's really that important, carry a shotgun or a bolt action rifle.


Perfect example of what I'm talking about! Doesn't a gun with a one round magazine and a full length stock, or a shotgun still make it far easier to harm someone (than not having those weapons at all presumably)? Yes or no? The answer is "yes", right? Ergo, the restrictions you propose still meet the exact same condition you start out saying we need to fix.

Quote:
The real problem is the idea that somehow there's a "need" for anyone to have 19 bullets in a semi-auto to feel "safe". I mean, even the guy with the tiniest **** would feel powerful, pardon me,"safe" with an 8 gauge.


Which is why this is a complete BS response. No amount of reductions to the capacity, shape, etc, of a firearm makes it not be a firearm, and not therefore a weapon that makes it far easier to harm people than other weapons. As long as your argument is that we should restrict weapons that make it "far easier to harm someone", then your argument does not end until we reach "no guns". Because "no gun" is always going to be less capable of being used to harm someone than a gun with one bullet. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying to themselves, or lying to others.

I'll point out that this argument also doesn't stop just at firearms. The very approach of "take away the weapon" is a moronically stupid one. Better approaches to violent crime would involve finding ways to deter people from choosing to engage in violence rather than trying to prevent them from being able to get weapons that make them better at it. I'd think that the reason for this would be obvious, but it's amazing to me how logic and common sense flies out the window where stubborn political ideology is involved.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2014 6:12pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#188 Jun 03 2014 at 7:28 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Which is why this is a complete BS response. No amount of reductions to the capacity, shape, etc, of a firearm makes it not be a firearm, and not therefore a weapon that makes it far easier to harm people than other weapons. As long as your argument is that we should restrict weapons that make it "far easier to harm someone", then your argument does not end until we reach "no guns". Because "no gun" is always going to be less capable of being used to harm someone than a gun with one bullet. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying to themselves, or lying to others.




Yeah, totally, just like welfare reform is just a wedge to go back to slavery. Nothing makes more sense than the slippery slope argument.



I'll point out that this argument also doesn't stop just at firearms. The very approach of "take away the weapon" is a moronically stupid one.


Sure it does. This argument stops when there's a balance of "anyone can make this in an hour at home" and "while this could kill a lot of people the other uses are significant enough to take on that risk" Really not that complicated. AR-15: Kills a lot of people, hard to make home, no other use beyond killing a lot of people, should be illegal. Chefs knife: Kills a few people, trivial to make at home, many non people slaying uses, should be legal. I'd add that this is the same argument used to regulate the sale of, say, nuclear weapons or nerve gas to the general public. VX Gas: Kills a lot of people, hard to make at home, no use beyond killing a lot of people. How is it we went "no nerve gas" and didn't slide down the slope to "no sharp sticks or boards with nails in them"?




Better approaches to violent crime would involve finding ways to deter people from choosing to engage in violence rather than trying to prevent them from being able to get weapons that make them better at it. I'd think that the reason for this would be obvious, but it's amazing to me how logic and common sense flies out the window where stubborn political ideology is involved.


Yeah, it's amazing that anyone would see these "better approaches" as somehow mutually exclusive with "less guns" Because, surprise! They aren't. So, hey, let's do both. Win/win. I know that utterly ruins your whole false dilemma thing that probably still works on the 4th graders you engage in political arguments when they show up selling cookies and your imaginary work debate partners, but alas, sometimes we have to make sacrifices to the altar of not being idiots.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2014 9:28pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#189 Jun 03 2014 at 8:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Perfect example of what I'm talking about! Doesn't a gun with a one round magazine and a full length stock, or a shotgun still make it far easier to harm someone (than not having those weapons at all presumably)? Yes or no?

Yeah, it's almost as though some people are able to see beyond absolutes.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#190 Jun 03 2014 at 9:10 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Yeah, it's almost as though some people are able to see beyond absolutes.


You know who hated absolutes? Hitler.
____________________________
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#191 Jun 03 2014 at 9:28 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
No. It's applicable to only those issue where there is a direct constitutional amendment that addresses it. If, for example, the 2nd amendment said something like "Living a full and complete life being necessary for free people to prosper, the right to life shall not be infringed by any form of capital punishment", then anyone arguing that "we could deter crime if we introduced capital punishment" would be making a useless argument unless they were willing to repeal that amendment. Get it? In this case, the constitution grants a very clear right for each individual to keep and bear arms. Therefore, any approach to violent crime that rests on trying to prevent people from owning arms is doomed to failure unless it includes an assumed repeal of the 2nd amendment.

You will run afoul of that amendment long before you can reduce the availability of firearms sufficiently to affect these sorts of crime. The criminal will simply adjust to whatever access he does have and move forward. The telling point in this case was a factoid that most people probably missed. He had 41 10 round magazines in his car. The number 41 isn't relevant. The number 10 is. That's the capacity we reduced magazines to, for the exact reason of trying to prevent mass shootings. As I've mentioned many times in the past, people will just carry more magazines of the reduced capacity. Chasing after capacity restrictions, and minor cosmetic restrictions can't work. Only repealing the 2nd amendment would work. And that's not something that's going to happen. Ergo, we should be looking in a different direction.


I was not arguing for/against the second amendment, but against your requirement of 100% agreement of a particular stance in order to be a reasonable approach. You argued that the "more gun control" is a "poor approach" because no one seems to agree, only resulting into more argument. I countered to say that is true for everything.

Edited, Jun 4th 2014 5:30am by Almalieque
#192 Jun 04 2014 at 7:07 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, it's almost as though some people are able to see beyond absolutes.
Only conservatives.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#193 Jun 04 2014 at 7:16 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
gbaji wrote:

Which is why this is a complete BS response. No amount of reductions to the capacity, shape, etc, of a firearm makes it not be a firearm, and not therefore a weapon that makes it far easier to harm people than other weapons. As long as your argument is that we should restrict weapons that make it "far easier to harm someone", then your argument does not end until we reach "no guns". Because "no gun" is always going to be less capable of being used to harm someone than a gun with one bullet. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying to themselves, or lying to others.[/b]

...and your argument doesn't end until private citizens (with sufficient affluence) are able to purchase and utilize nukes.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#194 Jun 04 2014 at 7:38 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I'd settle for a tank with an operational M256.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#195 Jun 04 2014 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Anytime is the right time for some dmb...


____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#196 Jun 04 2014 at 10:45 AM Rating: Default
**
641 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Elinda wrote:
angrymnk wrote:

I think we all know what needs to be done..
Ban Captain Crunch.

Who made him a captain anyways?!


Battlefield commission, back in 'Nam. Captain Crunch is made from condensed agent orange.



It wasn't General Mills, but I don't think Quakers even have a militia.
____________________________
Donbayne 100 Rng - Uinian 100 Dru - Breru 100 Sk - Nyenie 82 Brd - Ruusan 76 Clr - Braru 75 Mag - Syqen 100 Shm EQ Stromm/Luclin
#197 Jun 11 2014 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
This is an interesting thread.

Smasheroo wrote:
Somewhere in the world, girl children are smothered at birth because the burden of raising a girl is just too high. It is a bit disheartening that you use girls who lived past the age of infancy and their "problems" as some sort of example of suffering. You want suffering? Try suffocating to death in your mothers arms.


Perhaps I missed some nuanced point here and I don't want to presume to know what you actually believe.. but are you are pro-life or pro-choice?
I recognize the reality that people are going to find a way to lose their unwanted children no matter what the law says.. and once again.. I feel that the desire to push legislation to reverse Roe V Wade(and 14th Amendment) is indeed right wing politicians cherry-picking their own superficial views of religious beliefs in senate.. and I may even find that pragmatic..
yet indeed having the unmitigated view that all life is precious etc.. I could never support it.



Smasheroo wrote:

While it may have been the case in 1800 that everyone having a musket was a check against government overreach, the modern reality in the US is quite, quite, different. The flying killer robots don't give a @#%^ that you have a circa 1947 designed assault rifle, have no fear on this front. If you want the people to have their own flying killer robots.


So in your view..
The concept of the inevitable complete global dominion of darth vader clones and a complete and total eroding of personal freedoms to the point of the world becoming one giant technocratic Borg colony... do you think that this state of affairs is just so inevitable that you say "why bother?" or do you take it a step further and think that the public being controlled by the government is more desirable than the government controlled by the people.. perhaps because the people clearly can't take care of themselves. Do you think that the Borg had the right idea?

..or do you actually think that an unchecked government that has disarmed its biggest threat (the public) is going to magically not attempt to spread wider and wider like ivy and that we'll be living in Gene Roddenberry's vision in a few centuries? Cause I love me some Star Trek.. but I know we're really living in the Mirror Universe.

Quote:

Nope, Smash wants states rights. If the workers paradise of the 'chussetts wants to ban handguns, they should be able to. If Kentucky wants to allow people to have mustard gas and gatling guns, great.


That darm 14th amendment again.
So what does the Federal Government when a state decides to allow slavery again?
What what the point even be of a Federal government? It seems to me that there should be no national army but only well orginized state militia that are obligated for fight for the security of the nation as a whole... The problem there is no incentive for any state to not attack another state.. hmmm...

It sounds like you simply want to AU just like there is an EU. Mainly so we can get rid of that damn Constitution.

Quote:

The problem now is that the "weapons" being wielded against the "tyrannical government" may as well be room temperature ramen. They're about as effective. If the "tyrannical government" feels like killing you, and it can find you, you'll be dead regardless of how many rounds of 7.62 you stockpiled. In seconds.


You have no faith in the human spirit.
I agree with you about the "no organic uprising" but the Brits could never conquer Ireland.. despite the odds.. Or the Yanks.. despite the odds.. It would certainly be more bloody than anything that has every happened in the known world.. but I don't think you give deluded and desperate people enough credit.


Elinda Elinda Elinda

Elinda wrote:
Imo, the second amendment is contradictory to governing in general, but the notion that owning a gun, owning any specific object for that matter is an inherent right of every citizen is a ridiculous interpretation of a constitutional amendment.


You really seem to have a poor interpretation of what this stuff is all about.
These things are not supposed to be guidelines on how to rule-over people.. it is supposed to be how to keep people free.
That is a humongous difference which is very troubling that people don't seem to realize.

Elinda wrote:
No amount of denial will change the fact that a government giving you explicit rights to oppose it through illegal means is about as antipodal as it gets.


Whaaaat? Understand this. RIGHTS are different than privileges. Nothing gives you rights.. you already have them.. as it says "God given rights"... but I'm guessing since we don't believe in God anymore then no one has any rights... except for the Right of Conquest.

YES>. it was written for the sole intention of empowering the people to be able a threat to the government to keep the government in check. It's quite clear and it's quite simple regardless of how many steps have been taken by then by men in power to make sure that the people are empowered as little as possible except where it serves them.. but there it stands.






____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#198 Jun 12 2014 at 5:29 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Elinda Elinda Elinda
Go back to middle-school civics.



____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#199 Jun 12 2014 at 5:41 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
having the unmitigated view that all life is precious etc.. I could never support it.

This statement: "the unmitigated view that all life is precious"; is completely meaningless. It's a repeated platitude. Unless you're actually not a Christian and instead a Jain, there is ZERO chance you approach living that sentiment. Due respect, I don't really give a **** what you pretend to believe. Let's talk about what you actually believe
____________________________
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? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#200 Jun 12 2014 at 7:38 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
I could never support it.
You don't have a uterus, so who cares.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#201 Jun 12 2014 at 8:44 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
having the unmitigated view that all life is precious etc.. I could never support it.

This statement: "the unmitigated view that all life is precious"; is completely meaningless. It's a repeated platitude. Unless you're actually not a Christian and instead a Jain, there is ZERO chance you approach living that sentiment. Due respect, I don't really give a @#%^ what you pretend to believe. Let's talk about what you actually believe


I don't think I should have to specify "human life" in this context but yes indeed all human life I view as precious.
Unmitigated? Ok, Would I probably want to shoot a guy trying to murder my family rather than stop and quote scripture to him? A fair point.

During Katrina live footage I watched guys risking their lives to pull a 80 lb elderly woman out of some house and a very pragmatic part of me was thinking "wow what a waste of time" and yet another part recognized that no matter what the spark of life in a human being is precious... either forming in the womb or sitting in a gas chamber.
I can differentiate precious and tragic but they are not exclusive.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 310 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (310)