DunderMifflin Posted July 8, 2016 Author Share Posted July 8, 2016 1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Seems to me the Aussies managed the task fairly well, shortly after just such a tragedy. Not sure that this is a worthy excuse really. Honestly I feel that we should be rather ashamed as a country to have done nothing substantial after Sandy Hook. It's like we decided we love our guns more than we love our children. I realize that is a somewhat hyperbolic statement, but ultimately I think it's fair. I guess we could try it but Australia's solution isn't really comparable to our society. Much less population and way more spread out. I think California alone has more people than Australia, and just look at the difference in total land mass of the two countries. And its much more accepted in America for businesses to profit off of crime, higher incarceration rates, etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Seems to me the Aussies managed the task fairly well, shortly after just such a tragedy. Not sure that this is a worthy excuse really. Honestly I feel that we should be rather ashamed as a country to have done nothing substantial after Sandy Hook. It's like we decided we love our guns more than we love our children. I realize that is a somewhat hyperbolic statement, but ultimately I think it's fair. No. it isn't. Hyperbole is, by definition: Quote obvious and intentional exaggeration. 2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be takenliterally, as “to wait an eternity.”. There's nothing 'fair' about that kind of statement. it's utterly reductionist, in addition to be complete exaggeration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 Just now, DunderMifflin said: I guess we could try it but Australia's solution isn't really comparable to our society. Much less population and way more spread out. I think California alone has more people than Australia, and just look at the difference in total land mass of the two countries. And its much more accepted in America for businesses to profit off of crime, higher incarceration rates, etc etc Yeah, I'm not suggesting that it would be easy, just that it's possible. Time for that to stop being socially acceptable as well, but one problem at a time, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 2 minutes ago, Swordfish said: No. it isn't. Hyperbole is, by definition: There's nothing 'fair' about that kind of statement. it's utterly reductionist, in addition to be complete exaggeration. I think there's some truth in it. It is reductionist, for sure, but given the lack of result I don't think you can call it an exaggeration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: I think there's some truth in it. It is reductionist, for sure, but given the lack of result I don't think you can call it an exaggeration. I think it's an exaggeration because of the excessively loaded term 'love' when being used for both children and guns. Especially since what people love aren't guns, but instead their guaranteed freedom. It's an obvious offensive term that will make people immediately pick sides without anything constructive done. I would probably phrase it as that Americans value their guaranteed rights more than they do the safety of children. And even that is possibly too loaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 3 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said: I think it's an exaggeration because of the excessively loaded term 'love' when being used for both children and guns. Especially since what people love aren't guns, but instead their guaranteed freedom. It's an obvious offensive term that will make people immediately pick sides without anything constructive done. I would probably phrase it as that Americans value their guaranteed rights more than they do the safety of children. And even that is possibly too loaded. Except it's not an exaggeration. There are people that care more about owning them than they do about the safety of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 14 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: I think there's some truth in it. It is reductionist, for sure, but given the lack of result I don't think you can call it an exaggeration. yes. It is absolutely an exaggeration. Period. 5 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said: I think it's an exaggeration because of the excessively loaded term 'love' when being used for both children and guns. Especially since what people love aren't guns, but instead their guaranteed freedom. It's an obvious offensive term that will make people immediately pick sides without anything constructive done. I would probably phrase it as that Americans value their guaranteed rights more than they do the safety of children. And even that is possibly too loaded. I would agree. It's too loaded. (pun unintended) it's also pretty much 'begging the question'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 2 minutes ago, Harakiri said: Except it's not an exaggeration. There are people that care more about owning them than they do about the safety of others. But not for the sake of owning the guns. At least that is not what they typically state. And 'care more' is not the same thing as 'love', so it certainly is exaggeration. Many gun owners care about their ability to defend themselves. Others care about their ability to do sport hunting. Others believe that it is their duty to have and be able to operate a gun so that they can fight against the tyranny of the government. There are a few out there - Jim Wright calls them Ammosexuals - who simply love and fetishize their guns, but they aren't a majority of legal gun owners as far as I can tell. More importantly, ranking everyone who has a gun with someone who would rather love their gun than a child is needlessly inflammatory. As soon as you do that you have completely turned them off to any further conversation. Which might be your goal, and if so cool beans. Just own up to it, don't hide behind it as a fair or reasonable comparison. Tell them that you're pissed off that they appear to care more about their fetish of guns than they do the lives of children and you want them to be angry. Own it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 Fair enough. I did write it with the admission that it is somewhat hyperbolic. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizabethB. Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 Executing random police officers is nothing but abhorrent. America needs #policelivesmatter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 19 minutes ago, ElizabethB. said: Executing random police officers is nothing but abhorrent. America needs #policelivesmatter They should probably form a coalition with #straightpride. But really, I find that I can't form much of an opinion until I've been provided with a thorough and detailed description of all of the cops' criminal pasts and also every photo that suggests they might be assholes or something. Seems only fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 2 hours ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said: I'd like to understand the actual basis of this belief. It isn't the text of the second amendment (militias are not used to stop oppression by the government typically now or in historical times) and isn't in most of the rulings on the amendment. It is certainly a talking point of the NRA, but as far as I can tell that started in the 1960s or 1970s. It comes from the writings and speeches of the founders and from the simple fact that the people who wrote the Constitution were precisely a bunch of armed men who had stopped what they believed to be oppression by the standing army of their former government. Of course, the founders were not a homogeneous group and some of them had different motivations than others, but the right to bear arms as a deterrent to tyranny comes across pretty clearly (though some quotes on the subject are more genuine that others...). That said, it is really, really bad if we've come to the point where the Second Amendment comes into play like this. It would mean that rule of law has broken down and we're falling back to a more primitive means of conflict resolution. Thus far, the vast majority of intentional gun violence by civilians has been due to psychologically unstable individuals. If gun violence on ideological grounds becomes more common, the casualties will skyrocket because, due to our near constant state of war over the past decade and a half, there are many people in this country who know not only how to handle guns, but also how to best use them in an ambush (e.g. the Dallas shooter was an Army veteran). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 Quote It comes from the writings and speeches of the founders and from the simple fact that the people who wrote the Constitution were precisely a bunch of armed men who had stopped what they believed to be oppression by the standing army of their former government. Of course, the founders were not a homogeneous group and some of them had different motivations than others, but the right to bear arms as a deterrent to tyranny comes across pretty clearly (though some quotes on the subject are more genuine that others...). I get that this is what you think and what the common belief is. Is there actual scholarly research indicating this? Because what scholarly research I've found indicates that this is not true at all. It is not something against slaves, nor is it against resisting their government; it is specifically to be able to resist armed invasion. Which at the time they were also pretty worried about, given that the British were still fucking around in Canada and were kind of totally pissed off. That's what I've read. If you have any actual quality links I'd appreciate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 Good article to read.http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-micah-johnson-making-america-racist-creation-article-1.2704556 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray the Enforcer Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said: They should probably form a coalition with #straightpride. But really, I find that I can't form much of an opinion until I've been provided with a thorough and detailed description of all of the cops' criminal pasts and also every photo that suggests they might be assholes or something. Seems only fair. Don't forget #notallmen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davos Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 *mod hat* We've drifted way off topic here. While tangentially related, a discussion on gun control could continue on for pages with barely a mention of the events in Dallas. In light of the twin tragedies of the past few days, gun issues are certainly relevent. If you wish to focus on that topic, take it to another thread. Keep this thread for discussion of the Dallas shootings.*/mod hat* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizabethB. Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 2 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said: They should probably form a coalition with #straightpride. But really, I find that I can't form much of an opinion until I've been provided with a thorough and detailed description of all of the cops' criminal pasts and also every photo that suggests they might be assholes or something. Seems only fair. Fair? Seems like social porn to be honest but no judgements! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamMe90 Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 4 hours ago, ElizabethB. said: Executing random police officers is nothing but abhorrent. America needs #policelivesmatter Yeah, because the minuscule number of police officers that have been killed his year (due to no doubt a plethora of causes, not all of which involve murder by black people) and the systematic and steady killing of black people by law enforcement are totally the same thing and warrant the same consideration and status as social problems. Or do you think that 57 police lives equal (at least) 136 black lives? 2 hours ago, ElizabethB. said: Fair? Seems like social porn to be honest but no judgements! Are you daft? Dr. Pepper is facetiously referencing the character assassination that inevitably occurs with victims of police brutality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 Holy I'll be back, Batman, they killed the Dallas shooter with a fucking robot... http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/technology/dallas-robot-death/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted July 9, 2016 Author Share Posted July 9, 2016 6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Holy I'll be back, Batman, they killed the Dallas shooter with a fucking robot... http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/technology/dallas-robot-death/ Yep, the Robot Wars are starting. WW3 is going to be all fought with robots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.