Hostage situation taking place now in Orlando. [50+ dead, suspect killed]
916 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50533185]I thought people were forced to do things they didn't like in America all the time. Even in the immediate aftermath of the independence war, people were forced to pay taxes at gunpoint by the very same regime which enacted the second amendment. In the various prefectures of the USA there are many laws which force people to do things, otherwise you are punished. I don't see how this is different to any other half decent democratic society on the planet
But somehow firearms makes you free, even when both our societies function very similarly? The only real difference is that a loud minority in America sees firearms as somehow a fundamental bedrock of their society
For us in Europe, we see guns as a mundane and functional item. To gun weirdos, it is the basis of an entire culture[/QUOTE]
Did you skip my other post where I talked about degrees of freedom? Never have I said that the US is 100% free or that Europe is 0% free. Yes, they are similar societies, but the US is generally more free while Europe is generally more safe. This applies to the nature of the welfare state, free speech laws (like hate speech), and gun laws as a few examples.
[QUOTE=srobins;50533247]Honestly I hate this Twitter "let's get him fired!!" shit. Guy is a piece of shit but stuff like this is so ridiculous, if you say something bad on the internet you're immediately descended upon by hordes of dumbass Twitter activists trying to get you fired and ruin your life overnight. This guy is easy to hate, but what's the cutoff? If you're against gay marriage are you going to get fired? If you're against immigration? It's such a gross tactic.[/QUOTE]
I think it's safe to say that the man's views do not fairly represent Walmarts idea of an employee. Shitty sure, but I don't feel bad for him in the slightest. Don't post where you work online, don't make stupid comments with your name next to them.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/opinion/the-corrosive-politics-that-threaten-lgbt-americans.html?_r=0[/url]
Absolutely disgraceful editorial from the NYT.
Muslim murders 50 gay Americans at a gay nightclub
NYT: 'Republicans, Christians, Pat Robertson, Republicans'.
0 uses of the word 'Muslim'. 0 uses of the word 'Islam'. Shameful.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;50533932]I think it's safe to say that the man's views do not fairly represent Walmarts idea of an employee. Shitty sure, but I don't feel bad for him in the slightest. Don't post where you work online, don't make stupid comments with your name next to them.[/QUOTE]
Like I said, I'm more concerned with the precedent of having your career/life ruined for a stupid comment on the internet. It's ridiculously aggressive thought policing on behalf of online "activists" and I think it should be looked down upon and not encouraged. The guy in my quote is a pretty clear cut example of a piece of shit, but I worry about what the criteria for "stupid comment" is, and who decides it.
[editline]16th June 2016[/editline]
Not to mention, what does it accomplish? Ostracizing somebody to that degree and potentially ruining their career/life over a shitty Tweet isn't going to change their minds about a topic, if anything it'll just hardcore entrench them in their belief system when they are severely victimized for those beliefs.
[QUOTE=srobins;50533247]Honestly I hate this Twitter "let's get him fired!!" shit. Guy is a piece of shit but stuff like this is so ridiculous, if you say something bad on the internet you're immediately descended upon by hordes of dumbass Twitter activists trying to get you fired and ruin your life overnight. This guy is easy to hate, but what's the cutoff? If you're against gay marriage are you going to get fired? If you're against immigration? It's such a gross tactic.[/QUOTE]
The guy literally supported a mass shooting just because the people involved were gay. He's not "just against gays", he's supporting a mass shooting. Even Walmart doesn't want someone like that representing them.
[QUOTE=Keychain;50534263]The guy literally supported a mass shooting just because the people involved were gay. He's not "just against gays", he's supporting a mass shooting. Even Walmart doesn't want someone like that representing them.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I've already acknowledged this guy is a piece of shit in two separate posts. I'm pointing out a general trend in Twitter politics that I disagree with.
[QUOTE=srobins;50534296]Yes, I've already acknowledged this guy is a piece of shit in two separate posts. I'm pointing out a general trend in Twitter politics that I disagree with.[/QUOTE]
You can say whatever you want with your name next to it. Its your right. But just because its on the internet does not mean you're free from the consequences. That guy obviously did not reflect the values that Walmart wants working for them
[QUOTE=srobins;50534296]Yes, I've already acknowledged this guy is a piece of shit in two separate posts. I'm pointing out a general trend in Twitter politics that I disagree with.[/QUOTE]
So, I work for Company A. In your world view, I can say anything of any validity, offensiveness, anything, I have complete and utter control to say whatever I want, and Company A, can do nothing about it.
Company A, has no ability to control what message it's employees send out, damaging it's brand.
In my world view, I work for Company B, and I can say anything I want. However, there's consequences to saying anything I want, because not everything I say will be acceptable to the brand, my employers, or my coworkers.
In one of our world views, you're not responsible for your words or actions. In the other, you are.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50534626]So, I work for Company A. In your world view, I can say anything of any validity, offensiveness, anything, I have complete and utter control to say whatever I want, and Company A, can do nothing about it.
Company A, has no ability to control what message it's employees send out, damaging it's brand.
In my world view, I work for Company B, and I can say anything I want. However, there's consequences to saying anything I want, because not everything I say will be acceptable to the brand, my employers, or my coworkers.
[B]In one of our world views, you're not responsible for your words or actions. In the other, you.[/B][/QUOTE]
Wow, what an unnecessarily condescending post dude. I'm not saying the company doesn't have a right to fire the person, I'm saying the Twitter users that seek out anyone making a comment they deem unacceptable and then hounding their employer for reprimand are the issue.
[QUOTE=srobins;50533247]Honestly I hate this Twitter "let's get him fired!!" shit. Guy is a piece of shit but stuff like this is so ridiculous, if you say something bad on the internet you're immediately descended upon by hordes of dumbass Twitter activists trying to get you fired and ruin your life overnight. This guy is easy to hate, but what's the cutoff? If you're against gay marriage are you going to get fired? If you're against immigration? It's such a gross tactic.[/QUOTE]
Eh its one thing to be against gay marriage but calling a mass murder a community service is another
[QUOTE=srobins;50534661]Wow, what an unnecessarily condescending post dude. I'm not saying the company doesn't have a right to fire the person, I'm saying the Twitter users that seek out anyone making a comment they deem unacceptable and then hounding their employer for reprimand are the issue.[/QUOTE]
So how's it actually work then? Only the company of it's own volition, and research into it's own employees can then fire them? They can't do it based on peoples complaints, customers complaints, or anything of the sort?
Like I'm not for the age of the court of public opinion, but how are you going to effectively and pragmatically limit the ability for a company to fire people based on the things they say on the internet with their face/name stamped next to it?
[QUOTE=srobins;50534661]Wow, what an unnecessarily condescending post dude. I'm not saying the company doesn't have a right to fire the person, I'm saying the Twitter users that seek out anyone making a comment they deem unacceptable and then hounding their employer for reprimand are the issue.[/QUOTE]
There's definitely things in your private life that you say and opinions you hold that a company shouldn't be able to fire you for. However, if you're celebrating the death of 50 people, you deserve to be fired. Kinda like the guy who got canned from a 100+k job at Hydro One for yelling "Fucker her right in the pussy" into a news camera. He also deserved to get fired for harassment.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50534712]So how's it actually work then? Only the company of it's own volition, and research into it's own employees can then fire them? They can't do it based on peoples complaints, customers complaints, or anything of the sort?
Like I'm not for the age of the court of public opinion, but how are you going to effectively and pragmatically limit the ability for a company to fire people based on the things they say on the internet with their face/name stamped next to it?[/QUOTE][QUOTE=DaCommie1;50534864]There's definitely things in your private life that you say and opinions you hold that a company shouldn't be able to fire you for. However, if you're celebrating the death of 50 people, you deserve to be fired. Kinda like the guy who got canned from a 100+k job at Hydro One for yelling "Fucker her right in the pussy" into a news camera. He also deserved to get fired for harassment.[/QUOTE]
Uh, almost completely sure srobins is just saying the tribalist mindset of twitter is bad.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50534712]So how's it actually work then? Only the company of it's own volition, and research into it's own employees can then fire them? They can't do it based on peoples complaints, customers complaints, or anything of the sort?
Like I'm not for the age of the court of public opinion, but how are you going to effectively and pragmatically limit the ability for a company to fire people based on the things they say on the internet with their face/name stamped next to it?[/QUOTE]
Are you even bothering to read what I say or have you constructed an entire narrative in your own head for you to argue against? I'm not suggesting any limits be imposed on the companies, only saying that I think the individual Twitter users who participate in outing people to their employees suck. It's that simple.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50534864]There's definitely things in your private life that you say and opinions you hold that a company shouldn't be able to fire you for. However, if you're celebrating the death of 50 people, you deserve to be fired. Kinda like the guy who got canned from a 100+k job at Hydro One for yelling "Fucker her right in the pussy" into a news camera. He also deserved to get fired for harassment.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=T-hunter;50534669]Eh its one thing to be against gay marriage but calling a mass murder a community service is another[/QUOTE]
Like I said, my complaint is about the trend in general and not this guy. I don't know how many times I can reiterate that I agree this guy is a piece of shit.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;50523900]You should probably snip this post, because it's really embarrassing for you. A lot of insecurity coming though it pal. You do understand you're digging up things that happened on an internet forum over 5 years ago in a desperate attempt to prove your point, right?
I mean, I don't even remember anything you've ever said in the past. I have no memory of anything you did that long ago. Yet you just pretty much did a full recall how I used to post, what I did, etc. albeit in a humorously biased/exaggerated tone. That's super creepy, dude.[/QUOTE]
I didn't find it humorously exaggerated or whatever. No matter how creepy, rapey douchey etc. you may be, it doesn't make some statement invalid by itself however.
At the end of the day, if majority people want guns then they should have 'em. Regardless of pretty much anything imho.
It doesn't necessarily make you more free though, funny how this thread even came down to who is the most "free" in the practice of self-defense. In that case that would be the U.S., and/or any other country with similar gun ownership laws and self-defense laws, like Taiwan or Cambodia or something, I'm sure a few exists alongside.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50534864]There's definitely things in your private life that you say and opinions you hold that a company shouldn't be able to fire you for. However, if you're celebrating the death of 50 people, you deserve to be fired. Kinda like the guy who got canned from a 100+k job at Hydro One for yelling "Fucker her right in the pussy" into a news camera. He also deserved to get fired for harassment.[/QUOTE]
you'll be happy to know he's back working for them and all.
Well, now you are being condescending, and find "gun ownership-based society", or the U.S., somehow less valid than.. say yours.
U.S. is also a modern state with people going to work every day in the morning, normal as ever. Couldn't tell the difference in some places.
With that quote, I meant that this gun debate doesn't need much explaining about IMHO.
If majority voice wants less restricted gun ownership, then nobody is to argue otherwise, nor that their way of life is somehow worse or better off. In the end we're all gonna die anyway, remember?
i think things can get better though
the first place to start is funding research on gun laws and policies
since the 1990s, funding in the government for gun research has been always critically short, meaning it's practically impossible to do any meaningful research on gun laws, policies, and their respective impacts and the like
there's also bringing the massive arms industry to heel, which is extremely powerful in terms of how much influence they wield in washington and the fact that they collectively use their comfortable position to saturate the world with arms and munitions at the expense of US taxpayers
only then can you start to introduce meaningful gun legislation
[QUOTE=srobins;50534896]Are you even bothering to read what I say or have you constructed an entire narrative in your own head for you to argue against? I'm not suggesting any limits be imposed on the companies, only saying that I think the individual Twitter users who participate in outing people to their employees suck. It's that simple.
Like I said, my complaint is about the trend in general and not this guy. I don't know how many times I can reiterate that I agree this guy is a piece of shit.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I agree they suck but you're acting like something should be done about it to give protections or something. I don't agree with mob mentality, or this whole court of public opinion shit that happens, and I'm not defending it, just your complaints that people are shit seems more like a complaint that you want something done about it.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50535368]Yeah I agree they suck but you're acting like something should be done about it to give protections or something. I don't agree with mob mentality, or this whole court of public opinion shit that happens, and I'm not defending it, just your complaints that people are shit seems more like a complaint that you want something done about it.[/QUOTE]
Okay, well I never called for anything to be done about it, so the debate is settled..
[QUOTE=Retardation;50535060]Exactly.
American gun laws are not worth debating simply because there is nothing to be done anymore. It's too late. The ship has already sailed. Guns are so ingrained into their culture that they built a massive [i]sub[/i]-culture around it. Any reasoning or logic or plain fucking empathy does not apply to those who ferociously believe guns are a human right. [/QUOTE]
Perhaps im misinformed but im pretty sure empathy is one of the main points behind having guns available to the public.
Y'know.
So people can defend their lives, their property, and their family.
[QUOTE=Retardation;50535060]Some Americans, by and large, consciously choose to indulge in their hobby at the cost of human life and general safety of their fellow countrymen.[/QUOTE]
Theres somewhere over 200 million guns in the united states, 300 million people, and roughly 98%+ gunowners (im probably wrong here, its likely a way higher amount) cause no problems, but fuck facts.
[QUOTE=Retardation;50535060]But it's alright because it's not even their fault, it's the fault of the founding fathers who didn't think shit through and those that came after them who chose not to sweep up the mess they left behind -- and who let this dumb "culture" evolve and develop into what it is today.[/QUOTE]
By "mess", surely you dont mean how the revolutionaries managed to defeat the single largest military power in the world and establish a nation who's constitution was thoroughly planned enough to have survived over 200 years with only a handful of amendments to it, leading to the most powerful and influential nation on the planet. The country that sent a man to the moon and back.
Surely you dont mean that mess.
[QUOTE=Retardation;50535060]You can flaunt your 'statistics' (unscientific, flawed, cherry picked, XYZ bias), and 'data' (often not peer reviewed, conducted with an agenda in mind, skewed to fit a narrative, half-truth), and graphs and use your famous mental gymnastics, but you can't run away from the simple fact that guns kill people. A lot. Completely preventable and avoidable. Just boom, dead. Because you think you have a right to defend yourself in case of home intrusion not realizing you're literally putting guns in the hands of the intruders yourself by actively supporting this stupid culture and its consequences.[/QUOTE]
So you're literally throwing out statistics that go against your bias and argument because "no no its not true though".
You pissin in my mouth, bro?
[QUOTE=Retardation;50535060]Because you think firing guns on the weekends with your friends is worth all the lives lost in the indirect process, in the background. [/QUOTE]
What about all the people who's lives were saved as a result of having a firearm to fend off intruders, would-be murderers, and muggers?
Oh no that doesnt fit the narrative you're building, im sorry.
[QUOTE=Retardation;50535060]Because you think hunting is a good enough reason to let teachers carry firearms. [/QUOTE]
It actually is in the rural sections of the country if you knew anything about animal population control.
[QUOTE=Retardation;50535060]Because you think freedom is being free [i]to do[/i] something instead of being free [i]from[/i] something. Like preventable deaths. [/QUOTE]
Again ignoring all the lives saved as a result of people having weapons for self defense.
[editline]16th June 2016[/editline]
Do you people think we're like Mad Max: Cowboy edition over here?
Its perfectly calm and civilized, we just happen to have a couple shit cities and be really fucking big. Clint Eastwood films arent documentaries on modern american life.
[editline]16th June 2016[/editline]
I'll be the second one today to point out how fitting your username can be.
There's actually almost one gun per person in the US now, the numbers most places report are 320 million guns to 360 million people.
Isn't there also more cases of peoples lives being saved by a firearm versus losing a life via firearm?
[QUOTE=DuCT;50536264]Isn't there also more cases of peoples lives being saved by a firearm versus losing a life via firearm?[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, but it's a difficult thing to measure since most studies on the matter look only at "justifiable homicides," meaning a case where someone killed someone else in self-defence, rather than all possible cases of a defensive use of a firearm.
[QUOTE=DuCT;50536264]Isn't there also more cases of peoples lives being saved by a firearm versus losing a life via firearm?[/QUOTE]
More people are killed unlawfully with fire arms than lawfully.
if a firearm does save you in most cases it'll have been the police
fbi study found only 3% of shootings are stopped by good guy with a gun, unarmed civilians have a higher percent stopping rate than that. And the ggyg were most likely on duty armed security guards.
[url]http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5900748.html[/url]
Fbi study is there. I'd post other sources but phone is low on memory so refreshes the page whe. I come back from other tab so I can only post 1 source here.
imo the good guys with guns argument is a baseless statement made by a bad guy with a vested interest in more people buying guns.
All that said-home invasion stats might be different but the aggregate makes owing a gun for purpose of self defence a little flimsy. Also back onto topic the terrorist had shootout with 3 armed men before the massacre and still managed, these were trained men And having armed people (guards or ggwg) inside a loud, crowded, confusing club is probably going to cause even more harm, though it might act as a deterrent.
also look up stats for ggwg getting misidentified by police.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEMHKO5MC6c" target="_blank">[video=youtube;xEMHKO5MC6c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEMHKO5MC6c[/video]
The only relevance is the part about gays tho
[QUOTE=sgman91;50529405]What you're describing isn't freedom, it's security, which you are welcome to favor, but don't pretend that it's freedom.[/QUOTE]
Carrying a gun for self defence isn't freedom, it's security. I agree with being able to defend yourself with a weapon, but don't pretend that it's freedom.
The problem with firearms is the same as most of America's other problems - it's that America's right wing has simply fallen off the political spectrum with their views on guns.
It's one thing to be against certain restrictions on firearms. That's an agreeable and understandable point. It's another thing to promote the view that the only way our society will become safer is by pumping more firearms into it. The only ones who benefit from Republican calls to give everyone a gun are the representatives of the arms industry who profit from war and death. They'd probably repeal the NFA if they could.
[QUOTE=AlexConnor;50538998]Carrying a gun for self defence isn't freedom, it's security. I agree with being able to defend yourself with a weapon, but don't pretend that it's freedom.[/QUOTE]
You're just wrong though. Being able to make the choice to carry a gun gives me a higher level of self-autonomy than not being allowed that choice, therefore it's a higher level of freedom.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50539351]You're just wrong though. Being able to make the choice to carry a gun gives me a higher level of self-autonomy than not being allowed that choice, therefore it's a higher level of freedom.[/QUOTE]
There's some schools of philosophy that would argue that you really just enslaved yourself to the idea of needing a gun to feel safe and so you are still imprisoned by the gun in itself. You think that having a gun gives you freedom when actually you feel dependent on it and so are enslaved by it
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.