This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ
Pages: 1 ... 100101102 103104 ... 256
3031
« on: December 07, 2015, 05:55:07 PM »
good, what gives one country the right to bomb another one without a declaration of war?
>countries
>giving a shit about rights
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
??
You will be dragged out of your house at gunpoint by armed thugs if you don't pay the government a portion of your income every year.
What the fuck makes you think they care about rights?
they obviously don't
that's the point i'm trying to make.
me too?
3032
« on: December 07, 2015, 05:54:47 PM »
good, what gives one country the right to bomb another one without a declaration of war?
The one with all the bombs.
yea but that's not very right.
Might makes right.
so if radical middle eastern people take over the world are they right?
In the eyes of history, yes.
yea but no.
"Might makes right" isn't necessarily right, but historically speaking it has been a pretty successful way to operate.
3033
« on: December 07, 2015, 05:53:47 PM »
good, what gives one country the right to bomb another one without a declaration of war?
>countries
>giving a shit about rights
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
??
You will be dragged out of your house at gunpoint by armed thugs if you don't pay the government a portion of your income every year. What the fuck makes you think they care about rights?
3034
« on: December 07, 2015, 05:52:50 PM »
good, what gives one country the right to bomb another one without a declaration of war?
The one with all the bombs.
yea but that's not very right.
Might makes right.
so if radical middle eastern people take over the world are they right?
In the eyes of history, yes.
3035
« on: December 07, 2015, 05:52:22 PM »
good, what gives one country the right to bomb another one without a declaration of war?
>countries >giving a shit about rights LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
3036
« on: December 07, 2015, 11:25:44 AM »
>"Wow, you have a plethora of qualifications and experience for a profession in medicine, you're the perfect candidate for the job"
>"Oh what's that, you smoke? Lol, bye."
Yeah I can see this totally working out.
The quality of most hospital workers in the states is garbage anyway. I've never had a good experience at a hospital. I'm sure there aren't very many "qualified" candidates to begin with, honestly. That said, I have to wonder about the quality of a healthcare worker who does something as medically self-destructive as smoking.
3037
« on: December 07, 2015, 11:19:05 AM »
As a smoker I see no problem with this.
3038
« on: December 07, 2015, 11:02:03 AM »
3039
« on: December 06, 2015, 04:06:27 PM »
forced *tips le greater good*
3040
« on: December 05, 2015, 07:48:06 PM »
I never said he or his arguments were stupid. I was just questioning where he stands and if it's worth getting into because it seems it'd be very hard to at least give/concede points with each other.
I tend to think definitions themselves have little value and should be avoided in an argument if it can be helped. They are malleable. There is no central authority on what exactly is the proper meaning of any word. Valuable in some contexts, but I think one should balance consensus and popular usage with contextual understanding. Dangerous things, really, unless both parties can come to an agreement on what a word's definition is. I'm a voluntarist, which necessarily entails an anarchist position. I don't honestly know if an anarchist society would be "better" by any given metric than our current situation. I am adamant, however, that all uses of aggressive force and coercion are illegitimate. You do not have the right to force something on another human being any more than they have the right to force their will on you. I come to this stance because I take an objective position on morality, but I am not a utilitarian like most objective moralists here. I don't believe the end justifies the means at all. The means are a part of the end. Most people here being utilitarians, I tend not to agree with anybody most of the time. We might agree on small things and some solutions to minor problems, but my worldview is generally incompatible with those of most other people. I generally don't concede on questions of right and wrong because I tend not to agree with anyone else's definition of right and wrong in the first place. It can be frustrating, but I like this board enough to stay.
3041
« on: December 05, 2015, 07:34:48 PM »
(dog dying)
Oh shit man. My condolences. I wasn't in my right mind for a week after my dog died. Best wishes to you.
3042
« on: December 05, 2015, 07:32:59 PM »
]As opposed to what? Would you rather be stabbed or hit by a car? I don't understand the point of this. Are you just listing other ways people can die? I can link you 'A Thousand Ways to Die' if that's the case.
Trying to figure out what you meant desu Public opinion polls are ridiculously easy to skew and mean nothing. They don't mean anything when they go against what you feel. But when they support something, suddenly they mean something.
When's the last time I used a public opinion poll to back up my stance? It's not something I do, because majoritarian morality is a shit meme. The vast majority of people know absolutely nothing about the causes they support or oppose politically. Those who know something are more often than not underinformed or misinformed. Great assumptions I guess. It doesn't take a genius to understand lots of shootings in America and how easy it is to get guns.
No, it doesn't which is why I find it disgusting that in every single gun conversation I've had on campus (and I've had a fucking lot of them), I was the only participant who actually had a reasonable knowledge of the laws currently in place on a local or national level. 1. You should read up on what a democracy is I know what a democracy is, which is exactly why I am opposed to democracy. ]I agree wholeheartedly, but I also think attention should be paid to our cultural institutions to see what roles they play in violence, as well. I agree. Culture is just as much the problem. It still doesn't take away from how easy it is to get a weapon designed only to kill. It's incredibly easy that it hurts. [/quote]As opposed to what? A weapon designed to cut your hair? Of course a weapon is designed to kill, it's a fucking weapon. Don't tack on redundancies as if they somehow enhance your argument. On to the point, it should be as easy as those producing the weapons want it to be. You do not have the right to decide how or what other people can trade.
3044
« on: December 05, 2015, 07:22:24 PM »
Guns really shouldn't be banned, and this is coming from someone in a place where they are. If you're going to commit a crime (murder, for example), you're going to commit a crime, gun or not.
Seriously, attack the person, not the weapon.
No one who isn't an ideologist, wants to outright 'ban' guns. That's a silly concept to even pitch around. People just want some form of control in a country that clearly has a problem with it.
Yeah, I'm sure the left was saying the same thing in Australia and the UK, too. You don't want to ban guns. They should just be expensive and difficult to access for all but the wealthy few, and totally out of reach for their actual greater purpose- defense.
3045
« on: December 05, 2015, 07:20:29 PM »
It's the FBI's definition. So if you think the FBI is bullshit, I don't really know what to tell you. I do, actually. Those retards started the .40s&w meme. And really, isn't it telling that the first thing Americans think of when they hear mass shootings, is some school or work place getting shot up? Like it usually is? Just sit back and mull that one over for a little bit.
Literally "muh chilluns"
3046
« on: December 05, 2015, 07:18:30 PM »
And really, if we're splitting hairs about a definition over how many people are getting killed in the US by guns
it still doesn't take away the fact they're getting killed by guns As opposed to what? Would you rather be stabbed or hit by a car? and that over 90% of people (at least according to polls taken last year) support at least the smallest amount of gun legislation such as firmer background checks, and Public opinion polls are ridiculously easy to skew and mean nothing. The vast majority of people know absolutely nothing about the causes they support or oppose politically. Those who know something are more often than not underinformed or misinformed. Further, appeal to majority means jack shit to anybody with a brain, and people with brains are often not members of the majority. Hundreds of years ago I'm sure 90% of people would support a total ban on gay marriage, but that wouldn't make them right. focusing on mental health more (which is a good thing even outside of guns. People need help with all sorts of things mentally in life).
I agree wholeheartedly, but I also think attention should be paid to our cultural institutions to see what roles they play in violence, as well.
3047
« on: December 05, 2015, 07:11:11 PM »
If you use the popular statistical definition of a massacre as a violent crime with 3 or more victims, which conveniently includes most instances of gang and criminal violence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting
She's using the exact definition of what a mass shooting is. You cannot fault her for the literal definition of what she's presenting.
Come onnnnnnnn
It's fucking misleading, and you know it. "Mass shooting" conjures up images of a pasty loon in black attacking a shopping mall or high school, not a violent dispute between drug dealers in the poor part of a major city.
There are a lot of things misleading in terms.
Feminist, Free Elections, Gun Control, Progressive, Terrorist Attack, No Sugar Added, All Natural, etc.
Just because you don't like the exact definition of something, that doesn't change the fact that her point, "There are more mass shootings than days in the US so far", is factually correct.
Treating a Wikipedia definition as if it is the final authority on the definition of a word or phrase is silly, especially one as politically charged as Mass Shooting. When most people hear mass shooting, the assumption is generally that the intent is to commit random mass violence. You're going to give me some bullshit about how it totally isn't and everybody thinks along the same lines as the media so everybody has always had this same definition, but fuck you, I know that's bullshit.
3048
« on: December 05, 2015, 07:00:09 PM »
If you use the popular statistical definition of a massacre as a violent crime with 3 or more victims, which conveniently includes most instances of gang and criminal violence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting
She's using the exact definition of what a mass shooting is. You cannot fault her for the literal definition of what she's presenting.
Come onnnnnnnn
It's fucking misleading, and you know it. "Mass shooting" conjures up images of a pasty loon in black attacking a shopping mall or high school, not a violent dispute between drug dealers in the poor part of a major city.
3049
« on: December 05, 2015, 06:55:25 PM »
1) Well it's a lot harder to kill a bunch of cunts with a sword, y'know? Who needs swords when cars and bombs exist? 2) Australia had the largest massacre in history before their gun ban in 1993. Since then, they have not had a single massacre (classified as killing over 4 people via the use of a gun) by civilians. America has had more massacres than it has had days in 2015. If you use the popular statistical definition of a massacre as a violent crime with 3 or more victims, which conveniently includes most instances of gang and criminal violence. 3) Are you one of those sovereign citizen loonies? Lmao.
Appeal to ridicule. Do not pass go, no not collect $100, return to high school writing class. "I think we should end gun violence by having certain people with guns violently take away other people's guns" LMAO
3050
« on: December 05, 2015, 06:44:01 PM »
Damn shame, too. Less lax options don't really seem to be...an option.
Life offers many more options when you stop pretending you have the right to control the lives of others. It's a pretty liberating feeling, honestly.
3051
« on: December 05, 2015, 06:41:52 PM »
"But the fact that all of you ignorant people can (and probably will) vote and promote legislation affecting these things is absolutely sickening."
Meanwhile, Europe and Australia continue to have incredulously less gun crimes committed as compared to America
Hmmmm
o wow countries with few guns have few gun crimes color me surprised fam A) gun crime is a retarded measure of the success of gun control. of course gun control prevents gun crime. what does it do for violent crime specifically? 2) wealthy countries with largely homogenous population, and arguably greater cultural aversion to violence have less violence? im surprise fam tres) crime is a retarded concept and using it in an argument with me is a waste of your time. The US government is one of the biggest criminals in history by its own standards, but you fully support it as long as it enforces your will and not the will of the political opposition. The only true "crime" in life is the use of force or coercion against another person, something police do every fucking day, and I don't see anybody trying to disarm the US government. I'll back disarmament when it includes everybody, not just civilians. Until then, Don't Tread On Me.
3052
« on: December 05, 2015, 06:28:33 PM »
"There's no way to stop this from happening" - only first-world country where mass-shootings happen regularly
Almost nobody's actually saying that.
We're just saying your solution is retarded and overreaching.
What's Cindy's solution?
I mean, tbh, I like shooting guns, but let's be real - assault weaponry shouldn't be available to just have in your home.
Carry and use of high-caliber and automatic weaponry should be restricted for shooting ranges. You can argue that you might need a shotgun or a small pistol for self-defense, but I dunno what kind of thief would need to be put down with a Browning.
do you even know anything about the devices you're talking about, or are you just pretending to be an ignoramus? High-caliber? Like what, .308 and up? Those are typically hunting rounds. Small ammunition risks simply maiming your prey, something no respectable hunter would want to happen. It sounds like you're talking about shit like .50, which I can't recall having been used in a crime. The cartridges used by law enforcement and militaries are typically 7.62x39, 5.45x39, and 5.56x45 (also known as .223), very small ammunition. So small, in fact, that many were skeptical of their effectiveness against humans when brought into service. If you knew fuckall about what you were talking about, you'd understand that high-caliber ammunition is the stuff that you would allow for hunters, while small and intermediate-caliber ammunition is what is typically used in crimes (as well as small game hunting). Also stop calling it assault weaponry. I know you think you can win hearts and minds by calling a semi-automatic rifle an assault weapon, but you won't change the mind of anybody who actually has a mind. This is the equivalent of me referring to government handouts as "mudertheft dollars" or something. The scary name change doesn't mean shit, these rifles are inanimate objects free from your retarded moralizing. Also, where the fuck am I going to keep my scary salt rifles if not at home? In some fucking range locker? Fuck you, I have the right to do whatever I want with my property as long as I'm not fucking with your shit. I don't give a fuck if you feel otherwise, keep your hands off my shit. But to your mention of automatic weaponry. Do you even understand how hard it is to get an automatic rifle in this country? Really fucking hard, unless you're rich as fuck or have ties to a cartel. Manufacture of automatic rifles for mere mortals (as in, not soldiers or pigs) was outlawed in the 80s. All of those surviving guns in citizen's hands are already heavily regulated and cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to obtain. By Browning I assume you're referring to an M2 in .50bmg, which is absurdly expensive to obtain, let alone feed with ammunition. Funnily enough (depressing, too), those are exactly the type of gun the 2nd amendment is meant to protect most- those that can be used to fight tyranny. SHOTGUN AND SMALL PISTOL FOR SELF DEFENSE. Nothing wrong with a shotgun for defense- but. You probably don't want a "small" pistol for self-defense. Ideally, you want the biggest thing you can carry comfortably. Generally, .380acp and up, and even .380 is pushing it. A smaller cartridge risks failing to stop an attacker. Size of the pistol itself doesn't even play much of a role in lethality. A .380, 9mm, .40 or .45 hollow point is just as deadly out of a full size pistol as a compact at pistol ranges anyway. With handguns, the cartridge matters more than the pistol itself. You might even argue that a smaller pistol is more dangerous, being generally cheaper and easier to conceal. But yeah, I know, you don't know shit about guns or gun laws on the books already, so you just assumed that since a bigger gun looks more intimidating, it must also be more dangerous. It's okay, most people don't know shit. Most gun owners don't even know everything they should. But the fact that all of you ignorant people can (and probably will) vote and promote legislation affecting these things is absolutely sickening. Democracy is a really shitty meme once you start paying attention.
3053
« on: December 05, 2015, 05:38:17 PM »
"There's no way to stop this from happening" - only first-world country where mass-shootings happen regularly
Almost nobody's actually saying that. We're just saying your solution is retarded and overreaching.
3054
« on: December 05, 2015, 02:12:27 PM »
This seems pretty iffy at best, to be honest. No other news outlets reporting on this?
Either way, this would be a good thing if not against the law, although I don't know enough about the specifics of the legal statutes to make that call.
The article is pointing out the implications of information originally reported by more major media outlets, and criticizing them for not commenting on that. It was originally posted by another source, and has been reposted on a number of other sites, mostly pro-gun, anti-establishment, or Alex Jones-type sites. If the author is wrong it would make me feel a lot better, so please debunk it if you feel you can. Otherwise, the implication is that not only does a registry exist, but it isn't even being used effectively to prevent violence. The latter upsetting me even more than the former.
3055
« on: December 05, 2015, 02:03:04 PM »
I know I'm a horrible person, but she's another one that needs to be put down.
That's your opinion, and it doesn't add anything to this, so next time don't post something like this.
From their perspective, you need to be put down.
Subjective morality is a shit meme and from any perspective worth having it needs to be put down.
3056
« on: December 05, 2015, 01:57:35 PM »
3057
« on: December 05, 2015, 01:40:21 PM »
> The anti media . org
hurr durr only sources that agree with my worldview are legitimate
I'll be sure to disregard any Huffpost or MSNBC links :^)
I just prefer this stuff from a more credible source and not something that has bias in the url name
It isn't as if the site tries to hide it, unlike most sources linked on this board. The article is primarily critical of the way mainstream media sources have glanced over this issue. It's not as if Fox is trying to sell you on how great the Koch brothers are, here.
3058
« on: December 05, 2015, 01:30:17 PM »
> The anti media . org
hurr durr only sources that agree with my worldview are legitimate I'll be sure to disregard any Huffpost or MSNBC links :^)
3059
« on: December 05, 2015, 01:27:33 PM »
3060
« on: December 05, 2015, 01:19:29 PM »
>letting people buy things that are designed to kill as many people as possible quickly
Can't justify this, absolutely unacceptable.
>violently kidnapping and imprisoning people who posses a small metal box with a spring in it.
Can't justify this, absolutely unacceptable.
wtf r u on about fat boy?
Morals, mostly.
Pages: 1 ... 100101102 103104 ... 256
|
Show Posts