[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51345969][B]Safety is a fucking [I]illusion[/I] people cling to because the alternative is a perpetual state of self and situational awareness.[/B]
I could get in my car, drive to your house, drive [I]into[/I] your house, and then hop out to give you a wet willy just on a goddamn whim. Even if you had a gun it doesn't make you [I]safe[/I] it just gives you the ability to fend me off a bit easier, you're still not safe. You have the illusion of safety.[/QUOTE]
If it's all just an illusion of safety then why bother either way?
[QUOTE=gufu;51345931]
Instead of arming the populace that can be victimized, we should be stopping people who are doing the victimization. You should try to catch a pyromaniac, rather than sit back and laugh at people who didn't insure their homes from fire.[/QUOTE]
Do you like
not think we are trying to do that or something
What do you think police are
[QUOTE=Anderan;51345983]If it's all just an illusion of safety then why bother either way?[/QUOTE]
that's kind of a silly argument
complete safety is (basically) unachievable, there is always going to be [I]some[/I] level of risk. But you can mitigate some of that risk through preventative or reactive measures.
[QUOTE=phygon;51345986]Do you like
not think we are trying to do that or something
What do you think police are[/QUOTE]
I mean sure, that is why we have police. But we also should realize why for some reason you don't need guns to defend yourself in other developed countries. Having a gun should be an option, and not a requirement.
The problem isn't even guns. It's the fact that I need them, while majority of people do not.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51345576]Why can't people just contain their political disagreements to obscure video game forums?[/QUOTE]
Maybe they toxxed their accounts :v:
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51345967]How am I being dishonest right now?[/QUOTE]Right now?
[QUOTE]His original argument? Can you point out his original argument because I looked at FlandersNed's post history and I can't find any argument of his relating to guns in this thread.[/QUOTE][I]That post you quoted had his post quoted and responded to it in kind:[/I][QUOTE=FlandersNed;51345434]You don't need a gun to feel safe.
In fact, you [I]shouldn't[/I] need a gun to feel safe.[/QUOTE]
Actually maybe you're not being dishonest, maybe something else is afoot here.
[QUOTE]You just butchered the analogy.[/QUOTE]No, the word you're looking for is "reversed."
[QUOTE]It would be more appropriate if it is known that kids are going around lighting fires everywhere, and the public doesn't feel safe so they outcry to the police, but then some folk who adore this one product tell the endangered citizens that "they should buy this product instead of complaining and being a victim".[/QUOTE]Oh no, we're going to go with the original one because it was just fine. No takesy-backsies here, pal. Somebody's setting fire to houses and I'm saying get a goddamn fire extinguisher, and you're telling me that's stupid because nobody should [I]need[/I] to get one because the fire department will surely save you in time. I'm pretty sure you realized how [I]stupid[/I] you sound right now because I turned your extinguisher analogy around on you, of course you want to turn it into a nameless "product." Of course because what kind of person tells people that having and using a fire extinguisher is a bad idea? You. You're that kind of person.
[QUOTE]Because your arguments actually offend me to the point where I need to tell you how fucked up they are.[/QUOTE]Here you are having trouble with words again. My argument offends you because you realize I've just made sense using [I][U]your[/U] own words[/I] and it just blew your entire position out of the water.
[editline]10th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Anderan;51345983]If it's all just an illusion of safety then why bother either way?[/QUOTE]God damn I know you thought this was just clever as fuck when you posted it. Why bother with self defense?
[B]You get one (1) life in the real world, death is a permanent condition.[/B]
[editline]oh boy[/editline]
Is this the problem here? Are [I]all[/I] of you somehow under the mistaken impression that if you die you'll come back? Has that been the mentality that I've been arguing with? Call it morbid curiosity but I really want to know.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51345874]No, seriously though. I'm just wondering what your point is here. That I used a specific turn of phrase that bothered the shit out of you? I don't get it.[/QUOTE]
My point is you're either lying to yourself or you're lying to everyone else for shits and giggles.
[quote][IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw2iRoTXcAIlC85.jpg[/IMG][/quote]
MAKE WHITE AMERICAN AGAIN
[QUOTE=Paramud;51346023]My point is you're either lying to yourself or you're lying to everyone else for shits and giggles.[/QUOTE]Are you okay right now?
People die when they're killed. Yes. I am aware. No self-deception here. Thanks for checking up on me, I appreciate it.
[editline]I have to laugh to keep my fucking sanity[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;51346025]MAKE WHITE AMERICAN AGAIN[/QUOTE]I am officially triggered. Actually what would make it great is if the swastika was backwards. :v:
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51346011]Right now?
[I]That post you quoted had his post quoted and responded to it in kind:[/I]
Actually maybe you're not being dishonest, maybe something else is afoot here.[/quote]
His argument is:
[I]You don't need a gun to feel safe.[/I]
You took it as:
[I]"I want you to be as defenseless as me because I'm scared and want to keep pretending that everything is okay!"[/I]
And you're saying
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51345610]No, that wasn't a strawman. You might want to reexamine the definition presented on the site, because I wasn't misrepresenting his argument at all to make it easier to attack. Actually I misrepresented it to give it far more substance, because "hurr you don't need a gun" is a stupid argument, and then I responded to it [I]anyway[/I] because I'm nice like that Since you said the same thing, I'll quote my response that you clearly didn't read:[/quote]
"this isn't a strawman because I enhanced his argument."
Get real dude.
[quote]No, the word you're looking for is "reversed."
Oh no, we're going to go with the original one because it was just fine. No takesy-backsies here, pal. Somebody's setting fire to houses and I'm saying get a goddamn fire extinguisher, and you're telling me that's stupid because nobody should [I]need[/I] to get one because the fire department will surely save you in time. I'm pretty sure you realized how [I]stupid[/I] you sound right now because I turned your extinguisher analogy around on you, of course you want to turn it into a nameless "product." Of course because what kind of person tells people that having and using a fire extinguisher is a bad idea? You. You're that kind of person.[/quote]
Ugh, I should've checked the logic of the analogy before presenting it to someone with a huge ego. I realised that I made an even bigger mistake comparing a tool to extinguish fires to one that ends human lives.
I also made the mistake of talking in the context of it happening RIGHT NOW. Of course you should use a gun if you have one if you have an invader trying to kill you. Of course you should have a fire extinguisher if there's a fire if you have one.
But saying that you should waste money buying a firearm instead of... let me put it in your words...
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51345969]I'm laughing because the alternative is getting angry at people with naive, juvenile views of the world who think that if we had just elected Hillary the bigotry would have magically gone away. Or something. I have no idea why, with actual photographic evidence, people are still asserting that no, it's better to just [I]trust[/I] that the police force's crack team of telepaths and clairvoyants will keep them safe.[/QUOTE]
Which is another one of your strawmans by the way because no one (at least here) thinks that electing Hillary will magically end bigotry. Electing Donald Trump and Mike Pence will just encourage bigotry because the man spews it like crazy which is one of the reasons why no one wants them.
[quote]Here you are having trouble with words again. My argument offends you because you realize I've just made sense using [I][U]your[/U] own words[/I] and it just blew your entire position out of the water.[/quote]
Your argument offends me because you're telling homosexuals that they should get a gun to feel safe.
Your smug-ass point about me apparently being offended because I realised the flaws in my previous analogy falls flat on it's face considering I complained about your horrible ideas long before I made that analogy.
[editline]10th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51346011][B]You get one (1) life in the real world, death is a permanent condition.[/B]
[editline]oh boy[/editline]
Is this the problem here? Are [I]all[/I] of you somehow under the mistaken impression that if you die you'll come back? Has that been the mentality that I've been arguing with? Call it morbid curiosity but I really want to know.[/QUOTE]
Maybe this is one of the many reasons why people don't like the idea of using firearms because they don't feel safe. Maybe they don't like the idea of potentially ending someone's life. Maybe buying a firearm will give them further anxiety about the thought of ending someone's life.
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;51345434]You don't need a gun to feel safe.
In fact, you [I]shouldn't[/I] need a gun to feel safe.[/QUOTE]
I shouldn't need money to live, i shouldn't have to do a lot of things but that's not the world we live in...
Want to blame someone? Blame the people that were supposed to have your back but did not... Blame hillary for not dropping out the dnc when her corruption scandal broke, or blame the organisers of the dnc for rigging the convention and allowing hillary and assisting her to cheat several times. Or heck, blame hillary for focussing all her attention on the wrong states and having the wrong strategy.
Dont blame voters for picking a shitty candidate out of 2 shitty candidates... Ive been telling you guys for months now and i hate to be one of those guys atm but...
Told you so... The dems fucked up.
cross-posting this since this thread is much more active:
Numbers at the bottom are total third-party votes.
2008: [t]https://my.mixtape.moe/exbume.png[/t] 2012: [t]https://my.mixtape.moe/stmica.png[/t] 2016: [t]https://my.mixtape.moe/aqrazu.png[/t] [url=https://my.mixtape.moe/uhcefs.jpg]Here come dat Gary![/url]
[editline]9th November 2016[/editline]
Also interesting is the demographics. Despite Trump embracing anti-immigration and saying stuff like "they (Mexico) aren't sending their best", Trump got 29% of the Hispanic vote to Romney's 27% in 2012. As noted above, third parties were more popular in 2016 than in 2012 and 2008.
Linking these since I can't be assed to screenshot them:
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Voter_demographics[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Voter_demographics[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Voter_demographics[/url]
trump supporters are getting beaten up and their cars stolen at the same time
[media]https://twitter.com/MiddleOfMayhem/status/796545047915331586[/media]
Actually, on reassurance from my friend, I think my fire extinguisher analogy is pretty solid, save for the trivializing.
The last line of defense, when everything else fails: when the fire department fails in coming on time, when the police fail to stop the arsonists, when society doesn't discourage arson... Is a fire extinguisher.
But we shouldn't be using that fire extinguisher. We shouldn't be using it. That's the argument here. The fire extinguisher analogy doesn't work because it trivializes weapons so let's actually realtalk.
The last line of defense, when everything else fails: when the police can't help you, when the government can't help you, when society can't help you, when the law can't help you... is a gun.
But we shouldn't have to use a gun. We shouldn't need guns. That's the argument here. The police should crack down on hate crimes happening. The government should prevent hate crime. Society itself should prevent hate crimes.
A solution where the victim needs additional burdern in life in order to lessen the effects of being a victim, isn't a good solution.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51346044]Are you okay right now?
People die when they're killed. Yes. I am aware. No self-deception here. Thanks for checking up on me, I appreciate it.
[editline]I have to laugh to keep my fucking sanity[/editline]
I am officially triggered. Actually what would make it great is if the swastika was backwards. :v:[/QUOTE]
Great, thanks for confirming for me it was the latter.
[QUOTE=Wii60;51346147]trump supporters are getting beaten up and their cars stolen at the same time
-snip-[/QUOTE]
version with the original audio:
[vid]https://my.mixtape.moe/xelzft.webm[/vid]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51346155]The last line of defense, when everything else fails: when the police can't help you, when the government can't help you, when society can't help you, when the law can't help you... is a gun.
But we shouldn't have to use a gun. We shouldn't need guns. That's the argument here. The police should crack down on hate crimes happening. The government should prevent hate crime. Society itself should prevent hate crimes.
A solution where the victim needs additional burdern in life in order to lessen the effects of being a victim, isn't a good solution.[/QUOTE]
what is this star trek hippie talk i hear
[editline]10th November 2016[/editline]
if the government ushered in an era where i would never need to shoot somebody to defend myself that would mean its too big a gubbermint, and boy let me tell you i will not stand to be oppressed like that
they will never take my guns
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51346099]"this isn't a strawman because I enhanced his argument."
Get real dude.[/QUOTE]I honestly wonder what the hell you're doing here. I can always reference older posts to prove you wrong:[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51345610][QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51345512]You shouldn't have a gun to feel safe.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]you should keep this site open and do a quick check for each fallacy before you post[/QUOTE]No, that wasn't a strawman. You might want to reexamine the definition presented on the site, because I wasn't misrepresenting his argument at all to make it easier to attack. Actually I misrepresented it to give it far more substance, because "hurr you don't need a gun" is a stupid argument, and then I responded to it [I]anyway[/I] because I'm nice like that Since you said the same thing, I'll quote my response that you clearly didn't read:[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51345508]"I want you to be as defenseless as me because I'm scared and want to keep pretending that everything is okay!" That's the subtext I'm reading.
... Have you been paying attention to the discussion? Open violence against LGBT people because Pence "emboldens" bigots? Yeah, that's a cute sentiment you have, but like many, many things that shouldn't be this one still exists. I'm not going to prescribe to your, "yeah but like you don't [I]need[/I] a gun..." drivel when the post at the top of this page demonstrates why minorities do need to protect themselves.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]Quotes inside quotes!
[QUOTE]Ugh, I should've checked the logic of the analogy before presenting it to someone with a huge ego. I realised that I made an even bigger mistake comparing a tool to extinguish fires to one that ends human lives.
I also made the mistake of talking in the context of it happening RIGHT NOW. Of course you should use a gun if you have one if you have an invader trying to kill you. Of course you should have a fire extinguisher if there's a fire if you have one.[/QUOTE]I actually laughed at this because I love to watch you try to make this work, "my huge ego" isn't the problem here. You made a safety analogy to a guy who treats a firearm as a safety tool, then when you realized your [I]incredible[/I] fuckup you tried to rewrite it and now you're mad that I won't play along.
[QUOTE]But saying that you should waste money buying a firearm instead of... let me put it in your words...[/QUOTE]Wait for it...
[QUOTE]Which is another one of your strawmans by the way because no one (at least here) thinks that electing Hillary will magically end bigotry.[/QUOTE](I don't [I]think[/I] it can be a strawman if I'm closing with it and using it as a snide remark)
[QUOTE]Electing Donald Trump and Mike Pence will just encourage bigotry because the man spews it like crazy which is one of the reasons why no one wants them.[/QUOTE]So wait wait wait. You're saying that Donald Trump and Mike Pence, collectively, raise the amount and saturation of bigotry in society, correct? Yet you're [I]also[/I] saying that encouraging potential victims of that bigotry to possess the means to defend themselves from it is objectively bad. A waste of money in your words. Here, while we're looking at this let's use that to demonstrate a strawman:
[QUOTE]Your argument offends me because you're telling homosexuals that they should get a gun to feel safe. [/QUOTE]You actively believe that Donald Trump will make America bigoted and you want gays to roll over and die?! What the fuck man!!!
[QUOTE]Your smug-ass point about me apparently being offended because I realised the flaws in my previous analogy falls flat on it's face considering I complained about your horrible ideas long before I made that analogy.[/QUOTE]Seems like you're just easily offended by everything, I guess.
[QUOTE]Maybe this is one of the many reasons why people don't like the idea of using firearms because they don't feel safe. Maybe they don't like the idea of potentially ending someone's life. Maybe buying a firearm will give them further anxiety about the thought of ending someone's life.[/QUOTE]Maybe! Or maybe that's all fearmongering and baseless conjecture. Or [I]maybe[/I] it's a myth perpetuated by people who don't know anything about firearm ownership and irrationally hate people who do! [I]Or maybe[/I] it's perfectly normal to have some apprehension toward handling something that's known to be [I]a bit[/I] dangerous.
[editline]10th November 2016[/editline]
Oh I almost missed this.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51346155]The last line of defense, when everything else fails: when the police can't help you, when the government can't help you, when society can't help you, when the law can't help you... is a gun.[/QUOTE]Congratulations, [I]we agree,[/I] that's exactly what gun rights activists believe. When it is just you and you alone versus something [I]bad[/I] you're going to need a way to defend yourself. We live in a world where we shouldn't need to do a lot of things, but we do because life sucks.
I said this multiple times.
[QUOTE=cwook;51346239]version with the original audio:
[vid]https://my.mixtape.moe/xelzft.webm[/vid][/QUOTE]
What a travesty.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51346346]I honestly wonder what the hell you're doing here. I can always reference older posts to prove you wrong:Quotes inside quotes!
I actually laughed at this because I love to watch you try to make this work, "my huge ego" isn't the problem here. You made a safety analogy to a guy who treats a firearm as a safety tool, then when you realized your [I]incredible[/I] fuckup you tried to rewrite it and now you're mad that I won't play along.[/quote]
I made a mistake in an analogy and you're spending way too much time pointing out considering the fact that the mistake does not destroy my argument. You're refusing to move on because it supports your idea and you like to play games like a gradeschooler.
"Man I'm so gay OOPS I mean great at basketball."
"NO YOU SAID IT. YOU'RE GAY. YOU WILL FOREVER BE KNOWN AS GAY. YOU CAN'T DEFEND YOURSELF."
[quote](I don't [I]think[/I] it can be a strawman if I'm closing with it and using it as a snide remark)[/quote]
What?
[quote]So wait wait wait. You're saying that Donald Trump and Mike Pence, collectively, raise the amount and saturation of bigotry in society, correct?[/quote]
They don't raise it directly. When you have two bigot leaders who plan on implementing bigot policies, that sends a message to Americans.
[quote]Yet you're [I]also[/I] saying that encouraging potential victims of that bigotry to possess the means to defend themselves from it is objectively bad.[/quote]
No, you're simplifying it. I'm saying that your terrible suggestions of "You should stop whining. If you want to feel safe, get a gun." are quite frankly terrible for reasons discussed in this thread.
[quote][It's] a waste of money in your words. Here, while we're looking at this let's use that to demonstrate a strawman:
You actively believe that Donald Trump will make America bigoted and you want gays to roll over and die?! What the fuck man!!![/quote]
What are you doing?
[quote]Seems like you're just easily offended by everything, I guess.[/quote]
I would actually prefer that you contribute to the argument. You don't have to have a pointless comeback for everything I say.
[quote]Maybe! Or maybe that's all fearmongering and baseless conjecture. Or [I]maybe[/I] it's a myth perpetuated by people who don't know anything about firearm ownership and irrationally hate people who do! [I]Or maybe[/I] it's perfectly normal to have some apprehension toward handling something that's known to be [I]a bit[/I] dangerous.[/quote]
"A bit dangerous."
You have a tool designed for home defense. Some people won't feel comfortable using that tool because that possibly means that they might have to kill someone, and be prepared to do so. This isn't fearmongering. This is a fact.
[quote]Oh I almost missed this.
Congratulations, [I]we agree,[/I] that's exactly what gun rights activists believe. When it is just you and you alone versus something [I]bad[/I] you're going to need a way to defend yourself. We live in a world where we shouldn't need to do a lot of things, but we do because life sucks.
I said this multiple times.[/QUOTE]
Except we don't agree entirely on this issue.
Your solution to the problem of dealing with harmful bigots is to fortify the last defense.
Our solution is to fortify the first, second, and third defense so we won't have to use the last defense.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51346386]What a travesty.[/QUOTE]
The important thing to realize, as always, is that this kind of behavior is unacceptable from anyone.
[I][B]That means you, green voters.[/B][/I] :v:
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51346403]I made a mistake in an analogy and you're spending way too much time pointing out considering the fact that the mistake does not destroy my argument. You're refusing to move on because it supports your idea and you like to play games like a gradeschooler.
"Man I'm so gay OOPS I mean great at basketball."
"NO YOU SAID IT. YOU'RE GAY. YOU WILL FOREVER BE KNOWN AS GAY. YOU CAN'T DEFEND YOURSELF."[/QUOTE]lmao [I]that[/I] is a strawman, good sir. Plus you said your original analogy was A-OK so were you bullshitting me there or are you doing it here?
[QUOTE]What?[/QUOTE][I]"A strawman argument"[/I] is not a sarcastic comment.
[QUOTE]They don't raise it directly. When you have two bigot leaders who plan on implementing bigot policies, that sends a message to Americans.[/QUOTE]So there is no direct increase but they send a message? What message? That bigotry is okay? So if the message is bigotry is okay, you're saying this spreads the bigotry, correct?
[QUOTE]No, you're simplifying it. I'm saying that your terrible suggestions of "You should stop whining. If you want to feel safe, get a gun." are quite frankly terrible for reasons discussed in this thread.[/QUOTE]You're misrepresenting me, strawman alert! I said you should refuse to be a victim, and elsewhere I said calm down and to cease the hysteria because that solves absolutely nothing. You're either intentionally combining these two separate sentiments to misrepresent me or you're misunderstanding that they are independent of each other.
[QUOTE]What are you doing?[/QUOTE]I clearly stated I was demonstrating what a strawman actually is, since you accused my snide comment of being a strawman argument.
[QUOTE]I would actually prefer that you contribute to the argument.[/QUOTE]I believe I have been, I've made several statements and defended them.
[QUOTE]You don't have to have a pointless comeback for everything I say.[/QUOTE]Like this?
[QUOTE]"A bit dangerous."
You have a tool designed for home defense. Some people won't feel comfortable using that tool because that possibly means that they might have to kill someone, and be prepared to do so. This isn't fearmongering. This is a fact.[/QUOTE]I never said [U][I]that[/I][/U] (why do I have to be this specific? You should know better) was fear mongering, but your other assertions certainly are. That "A bit dangerous" you're presenting as a genuine statement and [I]not[/I] in the original context is a fine example of this behavior.
[QUOTE]Except we don't agree entirely on this issue.
Your solution to the problem of dealing with harmful bigots is to fortify the last defense.
Our solution is to fortify the first, second, and third defense so we won't have to use the last defense.[/QUOTE]I quite literally did not comment on the first, second, or third defense at all, especially with what to do with them, so this is baseless conjecture and a gross misrepresentation of everything I've said.
Quoting our future president, I believe your post was "low energy."
Jack I feel you're being a bit stubborn if you don't think there will be a marked increase in bigotry due to Trump and Pence supporting such views. Having the highest office in the land proclaim those things can and will influence people to lean that way. It happens with other views it'll happen here too.
I think overall this election will cause more bigotry all around from both sides but I do already see emboldened LGBT haters and I imagine there will be reactionary behaviour
-snip-
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51346531]Jack I feel you're being a bit stubborn if you don't think there will be a marked increase in bigotry due to Trump and Pence supporting such views. Having the highest office in the land proclaim those things can and will influence people to lean that way. It happens with other views it'll happen here too.
I think overall this election will cause more bigotry all around from both sides but I do already see emboldened LGBT haters and I imagine there will be reactionary behaviour[/QUOTE]Well, I was making a point by asking him to clarify but it's evident that the open bigotry stemming from this election has already begun. That's the whole reason why I'm saying yes, you should have a means to defend yourself but apparently wanting people to have a fighting chance against an attacker is terrible. Case in point:
[QUOTE=Ona;51346548]I mean, let's just forget that this line was written in an era where guns were single-shot, breach loading cap-and[/QUOTE]Whoops, stopped reading that stupid bullshit! Good thing to know my 1st Amendment rights aren't covering computers, typewriters, and even [I]writing with a ball-point pen on a post-it note[/I] because... oh. Wait, it [I]does[/I] cover all of that and you're just talking out of your ass.
Here let's make it simple. You stop whining about our rights and I'll refrain from insulting your intelligence too. Fair?
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51346486]lmao [I]that[/I] is a strawman, good sir. Plus you said your original analogy was A-OK so were you bullshitting me there or are you doing it here?[/quote]
I said my analogy had some flaws but it's terribleness wasn't as bad as I thought.
Also a strawman requires an actual argument. What is the argument with me fucking up an analogy?
[quote]So there is no direct increase but they send a message? What message? That bigotry is okay? So if the message is bigotry is okay, you're saying this spreads the bigotry, correct?[/quote]
Bigotry will spread easier with a Trump and Pence ticket if they encourage laws that harm minorities.
[quote]You're misrepresenting me, strawman alert! I said you should refuse to be a victim, and elsewhere I said calm down and to cease the hysteria because that solves absolutely nothing. You're either intentionally combining these two separate sentiments to misrepresent me or you're misunderstanding that they are independent of each other.[/quote]
Misunderstanding, then. But that doesn't make things any better.
Buying a gun doesn't remove "victim" status. You're still a victim no matter how many guns you own.
[quote]I never said [U][I]that[/I][/U] (why do I have to be this specific? You should know better) was fear mongering, but your other assertions certainly are. That "A bit dangerous" you're presenting as a genuine statement and [I]not[/I] in the original context is a fine example of this behavior.[/quote]
Then maybe you should format your posts better because what you said:
"Maybe! Or maybe that's all fearmongering and baseless conjecture. Or maybe it's a myth perpetuated by people who don't know anything about firearm ownership and irrationally hate people who do! Or maybe it's perfectly normal to have some apprehension toward handling something that's known to be a bit dangerous."
This whole thing is just a verbal clusterfuck and says: "What you're saying is fearmongering, baseless, a myth, uneducated, but it's normal to be concerned!"
You really need to focus on being more specific, instead of wasting time coming up with boring zingers.
[quote]I quite literally did not comment on the first, second, or third defense at all, especially with what to do with them, so this is baseless conjecture and a gross misrepresentation of everything I've said.[/quote]
[B]Alright. Bolding this because this is really important.
Someone was talking about how "lgbt folks are scared because we know what's coming." and your first instinct is to tell them to [/B]
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51345346]get a gun and join the [I]many[/I] LGBT firearm owners who refuse to be victims.[/QUOTE]
[B]then people called you out and you doubled down on your libertarian solution[/B]
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51345427][I]"Stop it you're making me feel stupid!"[/I] the posts. Did I tell you to shoot anyone? No. I said just get a gun and refuse to be a victim. I think that's perfectly clear, if somebody [I]does[/I] try to harm you then [U][B][I]defend[/I][/U] yourself.[/B] Are you honestly that fucking insane that you'd rather forfeit your life for an unlimited pass to whine about how your life sucks? I don't know why else would you respond to, "you should defend yourself," with, "IMAGINE TELLING SOMEBODY THEY NEED TO FIGHT THEIR MURDERER TO LIVE!!!!! SICK!!!!!"
Enjoy being a perpetual victim, but please, keep your dysfunction to yourself because some of us don't want to die for an opportunity to angrily blog about being assaulted.[/quote]
[B]what struck me odd is that you implied if you don't buy a gun, you will die. that has a lot of other implications on the other lines of defense but I don't think you care for implications.
you probably care for facts, and the fact of the matter is that you actually did comment on the other lines of defense (government to prevent bigotry, police to deal with bigotry)[/B]
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51345969][B]Safety is a fucking [I]illusion[/I] people cling to because the alternative is a perpetual state of self and situational awareness.[/B]
I could get in my car, drive to your house, drive [I]into[/I] your house, and then hop out to give you a wet willy just on a goddamn whim. Even if you had a gun it doesn't make you [I]safe[/I] it just gives you the ability to fend me off a bit easier, you're still not safe. You have the illusion of safety.
[I]Good luck with that.[/I] I'm not laughing at people with burned houses, I'm laughing because the alternative is getting angry at people with naive, juvenile views of the world who think that if we had just elected Hillary the bigotry would have magically gone away. Or something. I have no idea why, with actual photographic evidence, people are still asserting that no, it's better to just [I]trust[/I] that the police force's crack team of telepaths and clairvoyants will keep them safe.[/QUOTE]
[quote]I have no idea why, with actual photographic evidence, people are still asserting that no, it's better to just [I]trust[/I] that the police force's crack team of telepaths and clairvoyants will keep them safe.[/QUOTE]
[B]1. You stated that the police are useless in this case of home invasions by saying that you shouldn't trust them to be there on time.[/B]
[quote]I'm laughing because the alternative is getting angry at people with naive, juvenile views of the world who think that if we had just elected Hillary the bigotry would have magically gone away.[/quote]
[B]2. I honestly don't what this means for certain but if I had a clue you probably meant that the government is useless when it comes to preventing bigotry or you think that there is another government that would be more useful.
If it isn't obvious by now, you have good intentions but they're just too libertarian for the real world. People still have faith in the government and the men in blue to keep law and order, which is why everyone was just surprised that your first instinct is to buy a gun.[/B]
I'm off. I should've been in bed 4 minutes ago.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51345512]You shouldn't have a gun to feel safe.
[editline]4[/editline]
whoops this has already been said many times, thankfully.
[url]https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman[/url]
you should keep this site open and do a quick check for each fallacy before you post[/QUOTE]
Shouldn't have, but will definitely need, and I greatly advice people to buy guns. I am serious, everyone needs to buy a fucking gun, the right wingers will stomp all over us if we don't show them some cajones.
Not only is Trump president, but the US replaced Michelle Obama with Trump's Third Wife. Bets on a divorce while trump is in office?
[IMG]http://lapostexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Melania-Trump.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE]What makes Melania Trump historic?
First foreign-born FLOTUS in 191 years: Born in Slovenia in Eastern Europe in 1970, Trump will be the first first lady not born in the USA since Louisa Adams, wife of President John Quincy Adams, who was born in England in 1775, when America was still an English colony, and took office in 1825.
First Wife No. 3: Past presidents have had multiple wives (Reagan, Ford, Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt among them), but no one else before President-elect Trump has been married and divorced twice before marrying a third time.
First former fashion model: Trump made her living as fashion model Melania Knauss before and after she came to the U.S., and met Trump at a fashion party. They married in 2005, and have one son, Barron.
First to have posed nude: She took it all off for photographers at least twice: The New York Post ran one set of images in July of Trump in her birthday suit in 1995 when she was 25. British GQ ran its own set of images, from 2000, in March, and again online on Tuesday, of Trump sprawled on a fur throw, wearing nothing but jeweled bracelets and a handcuff.
First for whom English is not her first language: Her native language is Slovenian but she also speaks four others: English, French, Serbian and German. [/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uselection/what-kind-of-first-lady-will-melania-be/ar-AAk77Uw?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=DELLDHP[/url]
[QUOTE=Ona;51346548]Funny how the main reason you need a gun to defend yourself in America is because guns are so easy to get over there.
But hey, it's your right. Second amendment, right there: "The right to bear arms."
I mean, let's just forget that this line was written in an era where guns were single-shot, breach loading cap-and-ball affairs that took upwards of a minute to load, were almost as tall as the people carrying them, and were a nessesity for putting food on the table through hunting.
I mean, it's not like [I]context[/I] has any bearing on anything, right? Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go stone my neighbor to death for working on Sunday and going against god's decreed day of rest. People these days, amirite?[/QUOTE]
It wasn't intended to protect those. The notion that a government would ban firearms would be unthinkable. Most of the country put food on the table through hunting.
It was intended to protect things like cannons. Civilians were stock piling cannons and arms leading up to the revolution. It is what started the war.
The point was to arm civilians with military arms so that they could kill soldiers.
Context is important. The possibility that the military could be used to suppress the rights of the people is a real threat that, regardless of the tech improvements, continues to exist today.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.