You must have missed it then.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Banana suggested bazookas for teenagers.
Mojo suggested nukes (with permits, the commie) for all.
Printable View
You must have missed it then.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Banana suggested bazookas for teenagers.
Mojo suggested nukes (with permits, the commie) for all.
@ Jack:
IMO, Kathy had a right to carry a gun until she drew it in a frivolous situation / manner / when there was no other threat to anyone's body being harmed. Then, IMO, she lost that right. I'm in favor of criminal charges being brought against her for unlawfully brandishing a weapon.
The right to terrible means is not the same as the right to irresponsible use of those means.
@ Oskar:
My stipulation is that we all have an inalienable right to means of lethal violence. Not that we have an inalienable right to use or openly threaten to use means of lethal violence without nuance or consequence.
IMO, Kathy was innocent until she brandished a weapon over a couple walking their dog where she didn't want them to. Then she was guilty. Nothing out of chronological order as far as innocence and guilt, IMO.
By brandishing her weapon as she did in the video, she has proven herself to be the "tyrant," and her rights should be lawfully curtailed thereafter.
I have many times told you my position on gun restrictions and my reasons.
It wasn't nanners, it was me who said that I don't believe there should be any outright ban on nukes. Heavy regulation, scheduled inspections by a regulatory agency, a facility and staff that meet regulations... etc. I'm not saying it should be easy or cheap, I'm saying it shouldn't be outright banned to people with no criminal history.
What you're missing is that Kathy misbehaving is not a reason to curtail MMM's rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What you're missing is that Kathy misbehaving is excellent reason to curtail Kathy's rights.
@bold: C'mon, man. Kathy has her choice of legal ranged or melee weapons to use, she just chose a gun for convenience and glam. Take away her gun and she'll find a suitable replacement. Human nature. Don't you study it? You seem to have blinders up to the darker side of human motivations.
Do you think Kathy is going to be so brave with a knife as she is with a gun?
This whole "you have the right to be potentially deadly to others until you do something to show you actually are potentially deadly" seems odd to me, sorry.
The biggest sporting even in the world is happening next month. Anyone want to take a guess what it is?
I have no reason to speculate upon how clever and/or innovative Kathy would be under different legal circumstances. I certainly see nothing to indicate that she'd do nothing at all, or that she was only acting confrontationally because of the gun. For all I know she'd have brandished a rake or attack dog or nail gun or anything else that would visually convey her meaning and intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
My speculation is boring at any rate. I'd rather talk about your inability to acknowledge the darker side of human motivations and the rose colored glasses you seem to want me to wear despite the clear evidence all around us that humans are brutal and savage and unpredictable. The illusion of safety you've embraced is a cultivated backdrop to build a society against, but it's still a lie.
No need to apologize. I'm not trying to convince you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's called the presumption of innocence and it goes back at least as far as the Romans, so it's not like I just came up with it, though.
To be a human is to be capable of murder. You, Mr. Poopadoop could use your clever knowledge of gravity and human balance to push me off a building if we were so conveniently placed and you had the intent.
Should your brain be illegal? Your hands? If you really put your back into it, I'm certain you could choke me out. I'm a wet noodle. Should your hands be illegal? Over the stupid argument that they're "potentially lethal?"
Do you see why that argument holds so little weight with me? The whole, "it could be used to kill" argument describes 95% of the stuff in my kitchen, 95% of the chemicals in the cleaning cubbord, 100% of my actual tools and power tools. The simple fact that something "could be" potentially lethal is in the intent of the wielder.
The assertion that we are not "potentially lethal" weapons ourselves is what I can't get behind. It's just not a good model for human behavior, IMO, to disregard the brutal truth about the way humans interact when stresses are high.
I agree with you. But then, my points are:Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
- if she didn't carry a gun, she wouldn't have been in a position where a) she'd be a danger to strangers and b) she would get in the criminal system (criminal charges). Win win both for her and the people she could have killed.
- This seems to be her default stance. I would not be surprised if people like her draw a gun on a McD's counter because they forgot to include mustard. The moment they have a gun, they feel emboldened to use it. How do you know someone is like that BEFORE they legally get their hands on a gun? How do you know someone would not become like that AFTER they get their hands on a gun despite passing every test with flying colors?
- Bad apples like these damage it for all. Why? Because the consequences of her potential action are irreversible. That's someone's mom and dad she almost offed due to a permit dispute.
Today it's nukes. It could also be sarin, weaponized plague/ebola, the fucking I am Legend cure. Tommorow it's vaporizer weapons and AI nanodrones. All of these are designed with one thing in mind: killing.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Let's take it all the way. Do you think a random person has the right to own antimatter?
Second question: so they should have the MEANS to kill, but not the RIGHT to kill? Or should they also have the right to kill as well?
I'm sure she does a lot of things you and I would disagree with, but that almost none of those disagreements amount to our right to take away her toys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
a) and b) just boil down to presumption of innocence.
Regulations, background checks, licensing, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Presumption of Innocence means the bad guys get at least one bad act before we take away their rights.
No. The consequences of throwing away the presumption of innocence are too dangerous, and requires a higher bar than this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
It's the mind of the designer that did it. And if one designer can think it up, then another can.. and has... nuclear tech was developed simultaneously by competing governments. You can't outlaw smart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Yes. Antimatter isn't too hard to get. Hospitals use it in PET scans. The P is for positron, an anti-matter electron.
Good luck storing it, though. Seriously. It's attracted to regular matter, which is everywhere, and it disintegrates in a flash of light when it contacts matter. We don't store it, we produce it on site with radioactive elements.
The means to kill is in having a human brain and able body. The right to kill is in self defense.
After consideration and trying to see past the arguments, I'm with MMM here. I also don't support a total ban on weapons, I support strict background checks, permits, waiting periods, mandatory training, etc. The stricter, the more powerful the weapon, where you better have a REALLY good justification for having an automatic weapon. Hunting, self protection etc would not be sufficient reasons. 99.99% would not open or concealed carry, those things would be in locked cabinets.
The discrepancy in force between fat old Kathy with a kitchen knife trying to stab someone and fat old Kathy with a gun is obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You defeat your own argument here. You say people are brutal, but then you use this as a reason that they be allowed to have guns. Does not compute. I agree they're brutal (at least some of them), and that's why they should NOT be allowed guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You're just being silly here. The difference between all of these things and a handgun is that the other things are actually useful for things besides killing. The handgun is only for killing. No-one goes out and buys a toaster thinking "Imma gonna clock any trespassers I see with this."Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Starts by saying he agrees wtih Mojo.
Ends by stating a position much closer to Oskar/Jack/Poop than to Mojo's.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I think the reason I can't understand is because we're defining words differently. I don't want to be presumptuous but I prefer the dictionary definition of words, so when you say someone turns guilty the moment they do something bad and then by the force of magic their rights should be revoked... I genuinely do not understand what you're saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
In the real world, the other party could probably sue for something, but just quickly googling this, their chance of success is really low. The woman is not guilty of anything under the law.
You keep repeating that you have explained your position, but your position makes no sense to me. You want this lady to lose her right to own a pistol while not actually having violated any laws. At the same time you think citizens should be allowed to own nukes... if nukes aren't the line, is there one? Dirty bombs? What about weapons prohibited under the geneva conventions? What do you think about the geneva convention? Do you think cluster mines and agent orange should go back on the menu for solving international conflicts? Should they be prohibited in war, but available for private citizens?
If these sound like insane questions... this is why I dismissed you saying that nukes should be allowed as hyperbole.
That also means you do think that currently US gun laws are much too restrictive, right? Why are you so relaxed with the current level of gun control in the US when both the current level and the level we're advocating for are not even on the same scale as your ideal scenario.
lol, seller ask the guy, "Are you legal to buy a gun?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Him: "Yayaya."
Seller: "Ok."
Whereas I think you're not interested in understanding me, only in changing my mind to agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I find that to be a disrespectful way to approach any conversation about morality or ethics, and as such, I'm really not interested in talking with you about this subject. We can talk about so many other things and you're not so pompous as to think my mind needs changing.
At any rate: I'm saying that, IMO, the law should be such that she broke it when she escalated the situation from very unlikely that anyone would be harmed to an open threat of physical harm. That escalation is what I'm saying "should be" the line of criminal behavior. Of course, "guilty" is a legal distinction, and it'd take a jury to convict her, but with the evidence in the clip, I feel comfortable with the kangaroo court in my mind that calls her guilty. Of course my mind is not a real jury, and it'd take a full trial to convict her, and thus restrict her rights in accordance with the law.
In the real world, you'd follow the fact that this conversation is about my personal beliefs, and what I think the law "should be," and stop with all this misdirection.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Does this mean we're cartoons?
:p
The former is true, but the latter probably isn't. It's not that you don't understand, it's that I don't agree with you. It's that you're not trying to understand me, you're trying to get me to agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I'm not interested in agreeing with you on this. You've repeatedly shown me that you value different things than I do on this subject. That's fine. We can have different values and neither be wrong. This is about personal beliefs.
While I find your eagerness to abandon the presumption of innocence to be distasteful, and ultimately far more dangerous to good people than to bad people, I'm not judging you for your position. I simply disagree.
No. I want the law to be such that her brandishing a pistol over nonsense is criminal.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
On outright bans? Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Same. I've really already explained this. I'm against outright bans on anything if the sole or primary reason is "It can cause death."Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
If there are other reasons, then I'm all ears. The simple fact is that just about everything can cause death if used to do so. It's not a good enough reason on its own.
Prohibitions are ridiculous. Consequences to use are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I don't think you know what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I think you mean either the Hague Conventions with reference to use of asphyxiating gasses on the battle field, and "bullets that expand in the human body". or the Geneva Protocol with is basically the same thing, but a couple decades later, and expanded to encompass all biological or bacteriological agents.
At any rate, those are all agreements signed by participants that say effectively, "If we ever go to war with you, we promise not to use biological or chemical weapons against you, SO LONG AS you don't use them against us."
Sounds like parties are free to enter this agreement, and it's not about any ban, but a statement of consequence.
I like all of that, if I got it right.
I think granting rights to people is usually a good step, and drawing some sharp lines between civilized and uncivilized warfare and treatment of POWs is a pretty good thing to have done.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I think the idea that one nation can tell another nation what it can or can't have is stupid. I think telling another nation that there will be severe consequences if it does X is perfectly reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I'll let you guess what my answer is on this one, as a test to see if you're even trying to follow this, or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
These are perfectly reasonable questions which different people will answer differently, in accordance with their personal beliefs and values.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I think your issue in understanding me is that you don't think this is the case.
You think these questions have "obvious" answers, and when you hear someone say otherwise, you aren't prepared to accept that they are an intelligent person with different values. You're only prepared to plug your ears and try to convince me how wrong I am.
Fine. If I'm wrong, I want to know and to change, but ... your arguments are shallow and short-sighted, IMO. Worried about the immediate ugliness and not the long-term ugliness. Great. I'm glad people are worried about both. On this particular issue, I take a long view. It's not the case on all issues.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I'm just a laid back guy, what can I say?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
You made the statement that the woman was innocent until she did the thing, and then she was guilty. Not that she ought to be guilty. To claim that I am misdirecting for accurately reading your statement is a cunty thing to do.
If my position that slightly stricter gun laws could save a lot of lives is a display of my eagerness to abandon the presumption of innocence because of your presupposition (which I don't share) that only guilty people should be slightly more restricted in their ability to purchase weapons suitable for mass murder; then YOUR unwillingness to campaign your little heart out for your right to own every conceivable weapon is showing your eagerness to abandon the presumption of innocence. If this is truly your belief. Why are you ok with such draconic gun laws as judged from your ideal situation of near total deregulation?Quote:
While I find your eagerness to abandon the presumption of innocence to be distasteful, and ultimately far more dangerous to good people than to bad people, I'm not judging you for your position. I simply disagree.
If you think your inability to own nukes violates your presumption of innocence (retarded, but your argument!) then you are as guilty as I am. Actually much more because I'm not for much of a change. I don't think I've gone into details but the difference from what I think ought be from what is, is actually pretty minor. Your idea of what ought be is a far cry from current reality, and you are ok with being treated as a guilty person by being prohibited from strapping caesium-137 to an IED? Isn't this far more dangerous to good than to bad people?
Huh? I guess then we can make gun laws stricter as long as we word it as: this is not prohibition, it just means that there are consequences if we catch you owning it... like jail I guess. Ok? Did we just solve this?Quote:
I think the idea that one nation can tell another nation what it can or can't have is stupid. I think telling another nation that there will be severe consequences if it does X is perfectly reasonable.
fuck yourselfQuote:
I'll let you guess what my answer is on this one, as a test to see if you're even trying to follow this, or not.
You're really taking all this too personally, oskar.
You're also toeing the line on forum rules. Please don't. If you can't treat everyone here with respect, then you can not post. If you lack the self-discipline to control your posting, then a ban will be in order.
Seriously. I'm done responding to you on this topic out of respect for you. You can pretend I'm ignoring you for some spiteful reason if you like, but the truth is that I like having you here, and if you keep talking to me (or anyone on FTR) with the tone you use on this topic, you will be banned.
So I wont be responding to you on this subject, but please don't take it as any sign of disrespect. It's quite the opposite.
Don't get your cuntflaps tangled up on your way out.
You are willing to have an obscenely elevated level of gun deaths and your justification is the blatantly inconsistent idea that not being able to own every conceivable weapon is a violation of the presumption of innocence, but the current level of restrictions is not sufficiently a violation of your presumption of innocence to be worried about. This is complete nonsense no matter how you turn it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Don't get yourself banned dumbass.
Mojo, he's frustrated because of your stupid habit of making vague, long-winded statements, half of which are non-sequiturs that avoid the issue, and then refusing to clarify what you actually think, or at least realize the logical inconsistencies of your statements. Then on top of it you accuse others of not listening, when all they're trying to do is get you to make some fucking sense once a while.
World class insulting this. Credit where it's due.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I'm frustrated, too, but I'm not being disrespectful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
As for the rest, if you have any actual questions about my position, then read what I've already written and ask a question that isn't ignorant of all that's been said.
And "others" aren't listening.
My position is based on very simple statements.
1) All life causes death.
2) Any argument against the causing of death is an argument that nature is wrong, and not worth my time in a discussion about real world and real events that happen between real people, and who has what rights.
3) The right to the means of lethal violence is therefore an inalienable right
4) The right to the means of violence is nothing at all remotely to do with any right to exercise the use of lethal violence.
5) The presumption of innocence is a good move for humans.
6) Taking away anyone's right to the means of lethal violence is a steep restriction of their rights, and any argument to that effect needs to take point 5) heavily into account.
7) Humans are brutal, unpredictable savages and the notion that anyone doesn't have the right to defend themselves against said savagery is worse for the good guys than the bad guys.
8) Literally any outright ban on what anyone can own is a restriction of their rights, and again (5) is important.
9) Regulation, restriction, inspection, etc. are not a ban, and so long as they don't amount to a ban by the complication being literally impossible for anyone to meet, that's OK.
I've made so many more points than these that for anyone to claim that they don't understand my position is nonsense. Whether or not you agree with me, if you don't understand me after multiple pages of me repeating myself, that's on you.
Don't be stubborn. Don't pretend that someone whom you disagree with is therefore less intelligent than you. This isn't a math question.
Thank you for clarifying this. It may have been clear to you but it wasn't entirely clear to me until now.
And, just because I think your ideas are stupid doesn't mean I think you are less intelligent. But, there is not a clear chain of logic in what you just said, even if it is clear what you mean.
My bad, I should have stressed the hypothetical. I meant, like, the hypothetical and somehow miraculous accumulation of 1kg of antimatter.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Fair enough. Should the killing be facilitated too? A handgun facilitates these.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I could swear she would not pull out a jackknife on the people she threatened with the piece, though.
I agree with you here.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Let's take the analogy further, the means to killing as a right. What is the reason for a civilian to have a rocket launcher? A T-14 Armata? A kg of antimatter? Bubonic plague in the fridge?
Antimatter could be used as a weapon against someone who's trespassing on your property. It could also be used as an energy source if you're clever enough. I'd imagine 1kg of antimatter would boil a metric fuck ton of water. In fact it's probably the metric measure of a fuck ton. How much water boils when we throw a kg of antimatter in it.
If I figured out how to safely create antimatter, and safely turn it into energy, should I not be allowed to? Because, if I'm mentally unstable, I could threaten trespassers with it?
What if I want a rocket launcher for fun? Maybe I've got a cow that needs culling.
"I'd like a flamethrower to deal with a wasp nest in my back garden, please."
Actually I would like that.
True story... I've evicted wasps from my back garden before using a flamethrower.
To elaborate... It was a shared house back in my party days, and we had a wasp problem, they were under the tiles on the roof at the back door... and we used the back door to come and go, since the front room was someone's bedroom. So they had to go. We could have paid someone to do it properly, but I was quick to realise that meant less alcohol and weed. So I decided to deal with it myself. It was a hot day in late May, and I was covered head to toe in multiple layers of clothing. Scarf across my face, wooly hat, gloves, the lot. All that was exposed were my eyes. My method of dealing with the nest was to boil the kettle, throw boiling water onto the nest, and then torch the wasps as they came out using a can of deodorant and a lighter. It was a massacre. It took several rounds of water before they realised this was a battle they could not win, and the survivors finally fucked off.
Best day of my life.
You mean a real one or one you made with a can of WD-40?
Edit: Ah, ok you ninja posted me.
To drift back into the realm of the topic, a flamethrower is not really a weapon you can regulate. Squirt flammable liquid, light it, hey presto you have a flamethrower.
Yeah but it's a flamethrower. Just a small one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You'd have to be completely lacking a soul to use it on a person though.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
That's even worse than throwing acid in someone's face. To just hideously burn someone. I'd rather be shot I think.
Damn you quoted that before I edited "real" to "realm". It's an odd sentence with that typo!
I felt pretty soulless that day, tbh. Most of the wasps didn't die quickly, they merely had their wings singed and fell to the floor where they would die slowly. Still, it was definitely fun.
Indeed. So if we can make an unregulatable weapon with household equipment, what's the point of regulating weapons that at least are capable of showing mercy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You can also strangle them with your shoelaces, or put anti-freeze in their soup.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If you really want to kill someone, you don't NEED a gun. But it certainly makes things easier. And again there's no other purpose for having a gun, unlike deodorant, shoelaces, or anti-freeze.
I've gone genocidal on a wasp nest before. It was a nasty thing to do, but it sure felt good. And I was definitely glad they were gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
There are very few animals that I will happily kill without a shred of guilt. Wasps are top of that small list.
Mozzies, moths, and ants that bite. They're the others.
If I kill a hornet I feel bad about that. They're badass. But they're also a threat to bees, and a lone hornet is likely a scout looking for bees. So if you see a lone hornet, kill it.
A gram of antimatter is Hiroshima. A kilogram of antimatter we are talking apocalypse, split-the-planet-in-half kind of power.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Once you split the planet in half, all the water on the surface would escape and boil really, really fast. So yes, you would boil a metric fuck ton of water w/ a kg of antimatter.
Split the planet in half? That would surely require strategic locating of antimatter around a geodesic. You're much more likely to create a moon-sized crater if you only have one ground zero.
If anyone (with the appropriate knowledge and equipment) can make it and have it, then no one has the right to outright ban it from being made and had, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
A normal kitchen fork facilitates it, too. Should those be illegal? What about a slingshot? Bow and arrow? Nail gun? Cattle prod?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right" -Ani DiFranco
Her intent makes the tool a weapon, not the tool itself. It's cliche' to say "guns don't kill people, people kill people," but it's a real, rational view of the facts on the ground.
If I'm in a room with someone who wants to kill me, then I don't care what's in their hands or pockets, I just want out of that room and away from that person. If I'm in a room with someone who doesn't want to kill me, then I don't care what's in their hands or pockets, only that they're appropriately safe with whatever they're using.
I don't know her, or what she would do under different circumstances. She's shown me that she cannot be trusted with a gun, but not that she can't be trusted with a jackknife. If there's a deeper pattern of her threatening people with bodily harm, then more severe restrictions of her rights are in order, up to and including a prison sentence, IMOQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Excellent, we are getting somewhere. How many fatalities can we attribute to kitchen forks, compared to handguns?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Do you believe that, if there were no handguns and all things being equal, the homicide rate would be the same? Can you hold a person at forkpoint to rob them?
My point this whole time has been that guns were designed to specifically kill easier, while other things which can also be used to kill were designed for something else, and therefore would is of varying degrees as to how they can be used to kill.
OK, give me your opinion on this:Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
DO you think killing a person with a handgun and killing a person with a jackknife requires equal amount of skill or are they different? Why?
You're not going to deter a burglar with a fork, either.
Which of my beliefs are you trying to address?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Because this has nothing to do with any of my stated reasons for what I believe.
IMO, no number of deaths caused by criminals is reason to curtail the rights of non-criminals.
I don't have any way to answer that speculative question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I believe the human will to commit homicide will be the same, and that whatever tools a homicidal human chooses will be deadly.
I'm certain people get robbed at forkpoint, though the rate of which and success thereof are probably questionable. Just because there are much better tools for the task doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. The point is that the act of robbing someone is already criminal, so criminalizing whatever tool they choose to coerce you into letting them take your stuff is both missing the point, and criminalizing the victim.
If that matters to you, then that's great.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I don't even see what point you're making or how it's relevant to anything.
It requires murderous intent and the action of attempting to murder, with is already a crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Taking the gun away from the person being murdered is beyond my ability to endorse.
I believe this as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
But if you have a tool that can facilitate the desires of said will, do you understand how easily it can go wrong? All things being equal?
Easy analogy: if yoiu have that will yet all you have is a fork, the chances of it being manifested as a death goes near zero. If you have said will and are armed with a gun, the chances of it manifesting as a death goes up. If you have said will, and yet are armed with a assault rifle, the chances of it manifesting as deaths go dramatically up. If you have said will, and are armed with a nuke, the chances of unfathomable deaths go way up. And we can go on.
This is the question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
You are not answering the question IMHO. Does it or does it not require a different amount of skill, killing a person with a handgun or with a jackknife? If they are different, which one woiuld require more skill to pull off?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
How about a Rottweiler? How about an alarm system at home? How about a few prominent but fake cameras all over your property? Would those deter burglars?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Because the burglar would only know that you had a gun once you chose to brandish it, right?
A rottie and some fake CCTV certainly decreases the chances you'll have to brandish a weapon at a burglar. But if someone neutralised my rottie, I'd want a gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
And a spade.
I'm not so sure that's the case. O/J/P have been supportive of a total ban of certain firearms, M has been against it. However, I've not seen M clarify who and on what terms should be allowed to have a gun or a nuke, just that it shouldn't be impossible under every circumstance. I've seen no reason to think M thinks fundamentally different from what I stated. M, care to elaborate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm not super interested in extreme hypotheticals. I think there's a level of gun control that's reasonable, and I'm trying to argue why and when that line should be drawn differently. I think MMM's argument is a continuation fallacy on a slippery slope crashing into a dumpster fire. I say: countries that restricted the sales of semi automatic rifles with high capacity magazines as a response to school shootings all but eliminated school shootings, therefore I think it would be a good idea for the US to restrict the sales of weapons that facilitate mass murder to reduce the number of school shootings.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
MMM says: WhAt YoU WanT FoRkS OuTlaWeD Or wUt?!?!?!?!?!!
Then what's the big deal with gun laws? You can kill with a fork so taking away your nuclear warhead is not a violation of your presumption of innocence anymore, right? The slope goes both ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
What things are equal, here? Murderers and non-murderers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I don't disagree with any of this, but I don't see why it's an argument to treat non-murderers like murderers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
The answer is that the presumption of innocence means a lot to me and the suggestion that non-criminals should be treated like criminals 'cause maybe they'll become criminals someday is immoral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I haven't answered the question because the answer is irrelevant to my position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Both require skills, both have different strengths and weaknesses. If you don't know how to load a gun, it's not much more than a cudgel. Same for the safety. A gun has advantage in range, but that's useless in close quarters. The ready use and lack of any prep work to use a knife has advantages.
It's a stupid question, but even if it was the question you want... some statement that gets me to say that guns are easier to kill a lot of people in a short time than knives, then fine.
Guns are a lot easier to kill a lot of people in a short time than knives.
If you want to draw some line about whether a known murderer should be allowed to have guns and/or knives in their life, then maybe I can see some utility in this discussion. However, if you're trying to say that since a murderer can kill people easier with a gun than a knife, so non-murderers can't have guns, then I simply disagree.
I'm not interested in clarifying any specific terms. That's the job of whatever regulatory agencies, public or private, to decide.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I think I agree with what you've said, up to the point where you're postulating what the regulatory lines should be.
Attachment 1152
notsureifserious.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cPeZLCVWTw
Tucker: "I think you give a lot of us heart to keep fighting against the global tyrrany of the metric system, and I thank you for that."
rofl.
Complains about the metric system, but uses base 10. What a hypocrite. Duodecimal or gtfo!
It's the whole idea that the world's trying to take away America's freedom, like it did with the rest of the world, by imposing the metric system on it. That's what gets me.
I don't think Tucker believes that, but that they would produce that even as a semi-serious segment is bizarre... If you even have the most rudimentary education, you know about the international system of units and why you really want it over feetsies and furlongs.
Hahahahaha.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-8CXpapNeg
What's up dipshits
I guess I'll do one of those life update type things since none of you assholes seem to be around.
I built up to and ran a 5k this past fall. I've hated running my entire life, even when I was heavily involved in sports growing up. I proceeded to fuck up my knee not long after, and I've had trouble giving a shit about getting back into running since. I've found that I dislike people who run more than I dislike running, and that makes things complicated.
On the work/career end of things, I'm still doing my whole content creation and consulting thing in the gambling industry. I'm pretty solid with a few of the top affiliate networks and software companies in the industry, and I guess I've been doing this for about 10 years or so now. I'm also still building out my own sites and whatever, just not in the gambling industry because that's so shaky from the US (imo). Instead, I'm doing the other legal crack, which is the self-help and life coaching thing. It's a lot of fun and is more of a total hustle than poker ever was. I love it.
I started playing Runescape like six months ago. I'd played the older version some as a kid. I've mostly just been doing it fucking off in the evenings while hanging out before bed or having afk-able stuff going off to the side that I only have to click the screen once every 5-6 minutes to keep from being idle logged out. It's stupid, and I wouldn't recommend it, but I'm kind of pot committed at this point.
I'm still seeing the same girls and half-ass added one since I posted last. I had my anniversary of seeing the one for seven years last week, and last week was also a birthday for the other, so we go out together and do it as all one thing. The other I've half-ass added is a girl I've known a long time (15+ years) who moved to my area about six months ago, and she wanted some direction and that kind of thing. They all get along really well, and we all play Pokemon Go together sometimes and shit like that, but she's not really getting that relationship status as much as a fwb kind of thing.
I'm still MAGA as fuck.
I caught an online incel stalker on Reddit for a while. That was interesting but uneventful.
I work one day a week as a volunteer for a charity. Other than that, I'm still an annoying twat.
That's cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I don't really do the volunteering for charity thing. I think it's a waste of time and resources. I also don't donate to charity because fuck em.
I might be a prick.
What kind of volunteering are you doing?
I either sit on the till and serve customers, or sort through donations. I do it because I've been mostly unemployed for a decade and might actually want a job in the future, so it looks good on my CV. I also don't have a problem giving up one day of my week when I do fuck all for the rest of it, it keeps me from being isolated. So it's fairly selfish.
The charity I work for are getting really bad press at the moment, since one of their directors went to Haiti in 2011 after the earthquake and fucked underage prostitutes, and the charity tried to cover it up.
There's no other kind of charity.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
That's awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's not really something I give a fuck about. They do good work for people in disaster zones, and for people in poverty. Perhaps they should've thrown him under the bus instead of trying to protect their brand, but whatever. They're still a net gain for people in need.
Yeah I feel you on that.
What age is underage in that scenario anyway? 16?
I'm not even sure, in fact a quick googling of the story shows they "may" have been underage. Age of consent in Haiti is 18, but here in the UK (where the charity is based) it's 16.
Fuck knows how old they were. One thing isn't disputed, they were prostitutes. So... not really as shocking as nailing some innocent virgin child.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfam#...Haiti_and_Chad
I'm not even that clued up on it, turns out it was 7 guys, not one. It only came to light last year, despite this happening in 2011.
He fucked 7 guys? No wonder they're pissed.
Happy pride month.
Does "pride month" seem kind of vague to anyone else? Does white pride count? Asking for a friend.
I dunno, are you that proud of being white that you'll get your fat ass out, stand on a cop car and twerk like you're in a strip club? Because if so, yeah, white pride ftw.
Also, zoophilia is the news trans. Apparently. Not sure if it's a well orchestrated trolling exercise, or if the crazy fuckers of the world are seriously suggesting that bestiality is a legitimate kink.
It's a fucked up world.
My pronoun is ptang!
The exclamation mark is important, leave that out and it's a hate crime.
Heh.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Pedosexual is another fun piece of that whole clusterfuck pie.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Heya, spoon.
Nice to hear the rest of your life is chugging along with relative ease. Nice to hear your home life is stable and enjoyable.
Still into carpentry? Made anything lately?
I saw this the other day, Finding Equilibrium, and it reminded me of you, somewhat. Even if the guy is primarily using a poker analysis software, he's actually trying to dig into the what's and why's of it all. It's nice that though he's pretty new and only has a few videos up, he's digging into hands that are interesting. It's not your typical cooler situations, but complicated hands where the thought process switches gears on each street.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7a...sbnaESJe94d-tg
It's the first I've seen of this software, PioSolver, but I'm notably out of the loop. You heard of it? Thoughts?
I have no idea about any of that. I'm more interested in attending a women's rights rally as a supporter than I'm interested in anything poker-related at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Is that even a real term? Have people stopped using the word pedophile because it's discriminatory?Quote:
Pedosexual is another fun piece of that whole clusterfuck pie.
Did you stop being a misogynist? Or were you just trolling us the whole time?Quote:
I'm more interested in attending a women's rights rally as a supporter
Oh wait, that was sarcasm.
Heh.
Yes, and yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm a worse misogynist than I've ever let on.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's still ok to discriminate against gingers. All is not lost yet.Quote:
Yes, and yes.
This "pedosexual" things seems to be to be a 4chan trolling exercise that has resulted in some pedophiles sticking their neck out.
The P in LGBTQP is for pansexual, isn't it? Whatever the fuck that means.
Fuck me it's even more now. LGBTTQQIAAP
For fuck's sake.
Where's the S for "straight"?
I might campaign for another A in there, for "autosexual". The cars fuckers will love that, but actually it means self loving.
I'm definitely autosexual. I want to be recognised by the queers and pan fuckers, dammit.
Dammit it's already a thing.
Ah. Well, I really don't play or think about poker much at all these days, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Missouri is in a weeks long court case trying to keep our state's 1 abortion clinic open and operating.
It's some slippery slope bullshit. Like, there's nothing that says abortion is illegal in Missouri, but they've made such a morass of other hoops to jump through and other nonsense that the 1 clinic left in the state is having trouble getting its license renewed. AFAIK, it's all resting on one judge's decision at this point.
I thought there was supposed to be a QA in there for "queer advocates" which is straight people that are like, "so long as you're not trying to make the sexxy time with me, then I don't care who you try to make the sexxy with."Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Shit I don't know what half those letters are supposed to stand for.
Lesbian
Gay
Bisexual
Transgender
T ?
Queer (?)
Q ?
I ?
A ?
A ?
Pansexual (?)
Why it gotta be so complicated?
Do you want to have the sexxy time with me? No? Oh. What if I...? No? You're into what? Well... That's cool. Got it. Doesn't really work for me. Thanks. Bye.I
EDIT: It'd be funny if QIA was "Questioning It All." That could apply to my profession. Everyone always told me physics was gay. lol.
(lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, pansexual)
"Ally" is a heterosexual who actively promotes gender equality. I had to google that.
To be fair, that long string of letters is not common usage, it's generally LGBT+, but naturally your pansexuals and whatnot feel left out.
Despite it starting off as trolling, the pedosexual thing has actually gained some steam from non-trolling entities. I'm personally in favor of pedosexual rights, but I'm not in favor of children being sexually assaulted.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Glad to know that the killing of unborn children is still alive and well in Missouri.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
There's an interesting thing with those types where being bisexual is sometimes seen as offensive because it implies that there are two genders with pansexual being the preferred term.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
*pedophile. I'm not going to go down the route of using their preferred word.Quote:
I'm personally in favor of pedosexual rights
Such as? I mean, if someone admits to being an inactive pedophile, then I don't see how that's a crime. People have the right to not be criminalised for what they think. Gay people can't help being gay, I have to assume the same applies to pedos, that they don't choose to sexualise children. But they have to have absolute control of their behaviour.
As long as we live in a world where children are not capable of giving consent, then all is well. Adults may not have sexual relations of any kind with a child.Quote:
but I'm not in favor of children being sexually assaulted.
I actually once went on a trolling campaign on Twitter claiming this, that the B should be dropped from LGBT since "bisexual" implies two genders. I argued I was dodecasexual, that I was sexually attracted to all the genders that have pussy.Quote:
There's an interesting thing with those types where being bisexual is sometimes seen as offensive because it implies that there are two genders with pansexual being the preferred term.
There's an argument often made that even though you can't help being gay that you shouldn't do gay things because it's immoral. It's not completely unlike the same argument applied to pedosexuals. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's worth noting.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Children not being capable of giving consent for sex is a pretty recent concept. Again, I'm glad that people aren't just going around fucking their kids all willy-nilly, but it's something to know about as a commonly used argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
That's funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The fuzzy line for me regarding pedophilia is age of consent. I'm not going to lie, I've seen 15 year old girls that I think are hot. That's because they are post-puberty and look like young women. But once I know their age, I don't behave inappropriately towards them, I do not flirt in any way, I try not to imagine taking their knickers off.
You can't just say "puberty", you have to draw a numerical line somewhere. 16 is actually quite young; women they might be but they are not mature. 18 is better. But it's also unrealistic to think that 17 year old girls are going to behave themselves. I wouldn't date anyone under 18, but I'm 40 and even 18 is a somewhat morally questionable.
Sounds like Christian bollocks to me. It's not for anyone else to morally judge the sexual behaviour of consenting adults.Quote:
There's an argument often made that even though you can't help being gay that you shouldn't do gay things because it's immoral
Age of consent is a weird thing. I'll be 35 this year, and where I live, I can make a 16-year-old girl go ass to mouth while her twin sister licks my balls, and it's all good.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
But if she sends you a picture of one of her tits, that's pound me in the ass prison time and being added to the sex offender list.
I think 14 is a good, solid number.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Here's a neat map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of...t_-_Global.svg
"...but I'm 40 and even 18 is a somewhat morally questionable."Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I lol'd.
https://i.imgur.com/to2AJLw.png
https://i.imgur.com/7t2Wv32.png
Here's a spice rack I made a while back.
I'm not sure about this, but good chance that applies here, too. Porn actresses must be 18.Quote:
Age of consent is a weird thing. I'll be 35 this year, and where I live, I can make a 16-year-old girl go ass to mouth while her twin sister licks my balls, and it's all good.
But if she sends you a picture of one of her tits, that's pound me in the ass prison time and being added to the sex offender list.
Japan ftwQuote:
I think 14 is a good, solid number.
I did notice that seemingly inconsistent comment of mine, but I'm the one morally judging my behaviour towards an 18 y/o. No fucker else has the right to do so, since it's perfectly legal.Quote:
"...but I'm 40 and even 18 is a somewhat morally questionable."
It is what it is. I like fucking teenage girls. I've liked fucking teenage girls for 15-20 years. I'll probably like fucking teenage girls for the rest of my life.
Enjoying fucking teenage girls is completely natural. We need a flag and a month to raise awareness.
I can get behind this, even if I'm not actually fucking teenage girls. I can be an ally.Quote:
Enjoying fucking teenage girls is completely natural. We need a flag and a month to raise awareness.
I declare June 19 through December 24 as Fucking Teenage Girls Awareness Month.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If I don't get laid, I'll just spend every day watching teen porn. Lesbian, Japanese and Muslims.