Forum Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About butterbumps!

  • Rank
    what fresh hell is this?

Profile Information

  • Gender Female
  • Interests the art of U-Haul trucks; catsup; starting fires; amateur surgery
  1. I agree with OAR's comments about the overall proposition above, especially regarding the likelihood of encountering weapons.   I don't think guns are something that everyone will encounter across the US, and making it universally mandatory will make guns seem familiar and normal to a lot of people who'd have otherwise never encounter one (which is basically what you say here).   I can see the sense in making safety training mandatory for entire families rather than just the gun-owner, and perhaps even so far as mandating this at the county level for particularly gun-dense regions or something, but I think universalizing lessons will be counter-productive in the long run. That a ton of people would now be exposed to guns that otherwise wouldn't be has a lot to do with why I don't really see the sense in universalizing this (though I'm still not so certain the NRA would be footing the bill despite this).  Why make them seem normal and-- worse-- necessary to every American?   Despite what a lot of people seem to think, guns really aren't that useful or necessary to perhaps most of us.   Becoming much more honest about the contexts in which guns are useful and necessary, is, in my view, the direction we should be going with this, and I think a universal mandate would be doing the opposite (I recognize that guns are useful and probably necessary in certain regions and conditions, and am not for a universal ban exactly).
  2. I'm really not familiar with this proposition.   what are the immediate and long term goals of something like this?   and what's the scope?   I mean, are we envisioning that the mandatory safety lesson would be mandatory for gun-owning families, or vary by state or county, or would all Americans be getting mandatory education regardless of whether guns are relevant to their circumstances and geographic location?   If guns are so dangerous that they require every American to get mandatory safety training regardless of ownership or use, then what's the point of keeping them universally legal/ seeing them as a right?   I mean, couldn't the resources and effort that would go into universal mandatory training be better used addressing the issues that make people believe guns are necessary self-defense tools in the first place?
  3. and the answer is to educate everyone in case they encounter guns rather than just making guns rarer? that line of thinking reminds me a lot of how much money and effort i wasted as a smoker buying all these air purifiers and the like to contain the smoke rather than just not putting the smoke there in the first place.
  4. are we talking about compulsory training for gun owners (and perhaps their families)?   or are we talking about educating each and every American on the practicalities of gun use/ safety regardless of desire to own or operate a gun? i'm in favor of compulsory training for gun-owning families.   i see less wisdom in making gun operation normalized and ubiquitous for everyone.   not to mention I think it's an astounding misuse of resources.    
  5. idk if this is that relevant to what I was originally asking, but as it applies, I kind of don't see the wisdom in understanding this condition of mass shootings in the US and then making guns even that much more normalized and ubiquitous.
  6. Are those who're advocating for "mandatory" gun lessons/ safety in public schools and as critical "lifestyle lessons" seeing this as being mandatory for everyone regardless of one's desire to ever own/ touch/ look at a gun irl, as well as regardless of geographic location?   I can't say I'm super thrilled with the idea of my 8.5 million neighbors becoming super proficient with guns, nor the idea of gun use becoming super normalized in my incredibly densely packed area.
  7. Mass shooting in San Bernandino

    This might be getting slightly off topic, but visiting extended family this holiday, I was reminded of yet another issue I take with the use of the "self-defense" defense of the second amendment. My partner's family is extremely unhealthy, with an ever-increasing list of health issues, basically entirely due to lifestyle choices.   They are slowly (and in a few cases, not so slowly), killing themselves through their choices.   I don't judge any of this.  Yet, god forbid someone might challenge the wisdom of the second amendment (specifically for self defense)!  They also fanatically lock their doors, and are extremely preoccupied with violent crime. I don't think that holding these two positions in tandem is really all that uncommon (though I know even on this board there are exceptions to this).   I think there's something very skewed in our general obsession with safety against (honestly extremely rare) violent crimes, while simultaneously maintaining egregiously unhealthy lifestyles.   I guess there's something a bit strange to me in someone who smokes heavily and mainlines gravy advocating for gun ownership to protect himself from some vague, rare horror.   I just think that it's a strange prioritization that we have.   Maybe it's because violent crime is far more acute (rather than a fairly slow degradation), maybe it's because the thought of stopping violence is seen as heroic, maybe it's because violent crime is an action perpetrated against us whereas poor lifestyle choices is something we're in control of.   It just seems really unfortunate that we're so obsessed with safety regarding such obscure violence against us, yet totally willing to obliterate our well-being by maintaining lifestyles that all but guarantee major sickness.
  8. isn't shellfish gross?

    with the exception of the octo (which I've really only eaten as sushi), eating shellfish like that just seemed really normal and even had positive associations for me.   My grandparents came to assimilate the Italian-American culture of their neighborhood, especially the food, like the 7-fish Christmas-Eve dinners and that sort of thing.   so, idk, I just see it as totally unremarkable.   I could take or leave it, though.  I've never been a big animal-eater.   independently though, I do find meat absolutely revolting (yea, even bacon).   
  9. this went way over 400 posts-- time to open a new one!   
  10. Conservative or Conspiracy Theorist?

      so you're actually going to dig in your heels on this.   ok, so if it were truly the case that you totally embrace "conspiracy theorist," you'd have explained you hadn't meant "conspiracy theorist" as a pejorative term in response to me here, if not the actual OP, especially because you acknowledge that the term is not a neutral equivalent to "conservative."   the false dichotomy of the title wasn't a big deal at all until you came in to double down on your position that the board is full of "conservatives" and crazy "conspiracy theorists" without middle ground, and that the term "conspiracy theorist" is a fair one for the people of this forum.  It comes across as insulting and quite a bit judgmental.   You could have just acknowledged the false dichotomy (which you did, which tells us that you know perfectly well that "conspiracy theorist" is a more loaded term), and then either laugh it off (i.e. "I'm being cavalier about the term, but I don't mean it pejoratively") or correct the error if you were genuinely looking for a more objective questionnaire (i.e. simply changing the title to something like "do you read the text more cautiously or boldly" or something neutral like that, as mediterraneo was suggesting).  It wouldn't have been a big deal at all.   This thread is already toeing the line of getting a bit "meta" in terms of forum analysis.  The more you dig in on this issue, the more it comes across like you're judging posters, and the less appropriate the thread becomes.
  11. Conservative or Conspiracy Theorist?

      wait what?   I thought the false dichotomy was either unintentional, or perhaps more amusingly, meant to be a kind of self-aware ribbing or something.       But apparently you're going to commit to the position that posters who believe what you believe are "conservative" and those who believe in more are crazy "conspiracy theorists," and further, that posters only fall into the "reasonable like you" or "deranged batshit" in practice with no middle ground on here?   That's kind of "bold," and also pretty untrue, as even a lot of the responses in here point to a moderate approach to theorizing.   It kind of makes your discussion intentions questionable, and rather makes it seem more like complaining about those who don't think just like you.   I'm guessing you wouldn't appreciate an "are you closed-minded or progressive" thread, which is exactly what's going on in here, only reversed.   
  12. Conservative or Conspiracy Theorist?

      I think mediterraneo is pointing out the way the wording of the title leads posters to identify as "conservative" because of the dichotomy set up.     The issue isn't with the word "conservative."   It's that there's an equivalency being suggested between "conservative" and "conspiracy theorist," where in reality it's kind of a false dichotomy.   One comes across as reasonable and sane, while the other sounds batshit and slightly deranged.  So of course more people will self-identify as "conservative" when then other choice makes you sound batshit and slightly deranged, lol.   sorry for intruding on this, I'm sure mediterraneo can speak for himself, but wanted to agree with the point he/ she was making about how the wording is probably skewing the way people are answering.
  13. As per my comment explaining why your earlier thread was locked, I locked that thread because it not only contained show spoilers, but was using the show as a discussion point.   Just like you're referencing the show again here.   If you want to discuss this topic in the book forum, then make no reference to the show in the OP (PM me and I'll reopen the thread with an edited OP).    Otherwise, please resubmit this topic over in the GoT forum, where you can discuss both book and show.
  14. LM--    I'm in the middle of something and can't get to all of your post right now, but just to clarify, I was suggesting that the Wall might have been originally devised by ice wielders once south of the Wall to contain and solidify their Northern kingdom, as well as to keep those with other forms of magics that could threaten their power out, such as the FM and CotF who ended up North of the Wall.   idk if the "heart of winter" Bran saw is actually in the arctic, or if it refers to something more sinister and poetic, like Winterfell or something like that.   Which, btw, that snowstorm that's ensnaring Stannis appears to be coming out of WF right now, like an unleashing of winter or something-- Jon's even seeing snow drifts on the south side of the Wall, not from the LoAW.   We know there's super ancient FM settlements up beyond the Wall (ringforts are the earliest forms of "town planning," such as the one at the Fist).   If ice magic does in fact originate from further up by the Lands of Always Winter, it could be the case that some clan who originally settled up there decided to expand and consolidate into the more fertile and populated lands to the South, bringing their ice-working skills with them, then sealing up their territory.     (I'm kind of really curious about the Thenns (whose subjects worship them as gods) and some of the Frozen Shore inhabitants who are said to worship the cold gods, as a side point).    
  15. Discussion of the show is inappropriate in this forum, and belongs over in the GoT section.