|
My girlfriends mom and aunt and uncle are coming over for dinner for Christmas Eve. They're all super conservative nutjobs that think Obama is a Muslim and since they're old, they're on his list to let die at a hospital. I'm pretty sure the uncle is a Freeper and last time I met him he was saying that if we shipped the poors out to Mexico or Canada and "let them deal with our problems" America would be on the right track to "republican prosperity". I'm not sure if I have enough beer or liquor to weather this.
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:19 |
|
|
Ringo Star Get posted:My girlfriends mom and aunt and uncle are coming over for dinner for Christmas Eve. They're all super conservative nutjobs that think Obama is a Muslim and since they're old, they're on his list to let die at a hospital. I'm pretty sure the uncle is a Freeper and last time I met him he was saying that if we shipped the poors out to Mexico or Canada and "let them deal with our problems" America would be on the right track to "republican prosperity". Wear an Obama t-shirt to dinner and just before you start stand at the head of the table and laugh maniacally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
Ringo Star Get posted:My girlfriends mom and aunt and uncle are coming over for dinner for Christmas Eve. They're all super conservative nutjobs that think Obama is a Muslim and since they're old, they're on his list to let die at a hospital. I'm pretty sure the uncle is a Freeper and last time I met him he was saying that if we shipped the poors out to Mexico or Canada and "let them deal with our problems" America would be on the right track to "republican prosperity". Let's not talk politics. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. This is God's day, it is about family and friendship. Ta-da, now they look like poor Christians or jerks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
Republican prosperity: a thing that doesn't require a vast underclass of sub-citizen workers to exploit.
Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Dec 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
Ringo Star Get posted:My girlfriends mom and aunt and uncle are coming over for dinner for Christmas Eve. They're all super conservative nutjobs that think Obama is a Muslim and since they're old, they're on his list to let die at a hospital. I'm pretty sure the uncle is a Freeper and last time I met him he was saying that if we shipped the poors out to Mexico or Canada and "let them deal with our problems" America would be on the right track to "republican prosperity". I'm only half joking when I say that I spent some time memorizing quotes from Jesus about how being rich is a sin and how the way to get into heaven is through helping the poor. Throw in a few quotes about "biblical marriage" (Like how a rapist has to marry his victim as his punishment) and I am set for my insane family...
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
Feel free to use this for all topics of conversation http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/index.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Of course, the UK started out with a lower rate of gun ownership than the US and, being an island, will have an easier time keeping guns out after they're eliminated. The joke about this is that the US actually exports weapons TO the civil war in Mexico. There wouldn't be a problem with keeping people from smuggling guns in, everybody else would have a problem from not being able to smuggle gun show guns out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 20:47
|
|
|
B-Rock452 posted:I'm only half joking when I say that I spent some time memorizing quotes from Jesus about how being rich is a sin and how the way to get into heaven is through helping the poor. Throw in a few quotes about "biblical marriage" (Like how a rapist has to marry his victim as his punishment) and I am set for my insane family...
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:One of the things I've enjoyed following this thread is that certain parts of it have really helped my Bible knowledge. It honestly shocks me that the majority of the time I can quote circles around most Christians when it comes to the Bible. It's frustrating since I feel that Christianity should be this compassionate religion that should focus on social justice and helping those less fortunate. Instead we get this twisted version of modern fundamentalist Christianity that focuses on hating gays and the prosperity doctrine which goes against everything Christ talked about. This is my favorite quote from the Bible since I think it is the perfect counterpoint to what we see in the fundamentalist movement. Matthew 25:41-45“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.’” I must have missed the part where he adds *Unless the least among you is a gay. Then hate him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
It's amazing how many complicated workarounds Christians today have to avoid following the teachings of Jesus Christ. There are whole schools of thought when it comes to the Sermon on the Mount basically dedicated to not doing what Jesus said to do, because what Jesus very clearly commanded his followers to do would not be at all easy in real life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 22:45
|
|
|
This whole "slippery-slope" argument about gun regulation ties in to the general one-dimensional argument a lot of conservatives seem to have about any regulation. That is, as if the alternatives are either "more regulation" or "less regulation" rather than "better regulation" or "worse regulation" to achieve certain goals. This might be a headway into discussion with those of them willing to actually engage in conversation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 00:22
|
|
|
Ultragonk posted:No you just handed over your gun and that was that, I'm not 100% sure I was young at the time it happened. I remember my mum handing over her gun and one of my uncles handing over his hand gun but keeping his two rifles. There were a *lot* of guns that were of marginal legality even before the post-Hungerford and post-Dunblane bans. (UK gun control laws were almost entirely shaped by these two events - the Hungerford massacre leading to a ban on almost all long rifles, and Dunblane doing for handguns, although both were very heavily regulated beforehand). Mostly they were guns bought back as war trophies, but there were a surprising amounts of handguns smuggled in from France and Spain, which used to have somewhat laxer restrictions. That's what the amnesties were for. Actual valuable weapons were either bought back, or deactivated free of charge, but it was a very small amount (only in the thousands) of each. Even from a logisitical point of view there's no way it can be done in the US in any reasonable timeframe. (It's worth pointing out that shotguns and .22 rifles are still available for farmers, hunters, and sportsmen with appropriate licenses, and the actual amount of guns in the UK wasn't hugely changed by these two bans because of this)
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
^^^ That does explain it a lot better. Also explains where my mum got the hand gun from in the first place. My fencing instructor has a large selection of guns that have all been deactivated. Still confused the copper who saw them as to whether they were legal or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 01:03
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:This whole "slippery-slope" argument about gun regulation ties in to the general one-dimensional argument a lot of conservatives seem to have about any regulation. That is, as if the alternatives are either "more regulation" or "less regulation" rather than "better regulation" or "worse regulation" to achieve certain goals. This might be a headway into discussion with those of them willing to actually engage in conversation. That's due in no small part how a lot of the regulation that has occurred in the past was both more and worse (AWB). They are dubious that new regulation would be good instead of stuff like impractical ideas such as bullet stamping or harassing financial boondoggles such as registries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:There were a *lot* of guns that were of marginal legality even before the post-Hungerford and post-Dunblane bans. (UK gun control laws were almost entirely shaped by these two events - the Hungerford massacre leading to a ban on almost all long rifles, and Dunblane doing for handguns, although both were very heavily regulated beforehand). Mostly they were guns bought back as war trophies, but there were a surprising amounts of handguns smuggled in from France and Spain, which used to have somewhat laxer restrictions. That's what the amnesties were for. The volume of firearms seems to often be ignored when a lot of people bring this up. Not saying "Too many, can't be done" but it should be taken into consideration. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it legal to own rifles larger than .22 caliber as long as they're not semi-automatic or auto-matic? I've seen pictures from, what I am assuming to be, legal gun clubs in the United Kingdom with guns varying from the AR-15, AK-47 style rifles, and even 50 caliber rifles with their gas systems removed or never in place. Here's a video of one in action at a range. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60e-wFBWyEU
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
A ban is a pretty heavy-handed way to go anyway. Just make some sufficiently undesirable guns require a more strict license, require them to be registered, and require that they are stored in an approved gun safe whenever not in use. Need to train inspectors and all that stuff, but solves many problems (to a great extent by shaping attitudes) with a bit less controversy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 10:40
|
|
|
Registries are useless and expensive, Canada already tried and failed. The Supreme Court has ruled that you can't force the use of trigger locks so I doubt they'd be ok with safes. In any event that's pretty unenforceable. Inspectors? Seriously? You're proposing massive spending that would accomplish far more going into building a welfare state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
Interlude posted:Registries are useless and expensive, Canada already tried and failed. The Supreme Court has ruled that you can't force the use of trigger locks so I doubt they'd be ok with safes. In any event that's pretty unenforceable. Inspectors? Seriously? You're proposing massive spending that would accomplish far more going into building a welfare state. The whole idea is that the system surrounding it shapes the perception of the weapons. Enforce that people actually take a reasonable level of precautions when it comes to their guns, and at the same time make it clear that if your gun is used in any illegal way then the police will come knocking and asking questions. This should be compared to a ban, which has to have both more legal and political issues to make a reality. Really, getting licenses properly and so on will no doubt be fun for one of the types of gun owners that is vocal about this stuff. Makes the hobby a more exclusive and respectable thing to do. While also stopping in their tracks a lot of nuts who wants an AR-15 leaned against their beds in case Stalin climbs through the window. Oh well, deep into gun-chat here, but I really do think that looking into bans at the first reaction is why these things have a hard time getting anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
My cousin tried to argue today that the areas with the strictest gun control are the areas these shootings keep happening. Does anyone have good resources about that? All the stuff I found on google were crap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
Well, just off the top of my head: Virginia Edit: Looks like they've tightened up the laws a bit since then. The Macaroni fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Dec 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
prahanormal posted:My cousin tried to argue today that the areas with the strictest gun control are the areas these shootings keep happening. Does anyone have good resources about that? All the stuff I found on google were crap. Colorado, where the Batman shooting took place, has fairly lax gun laws, too. At least from what I recall. Though I'm no expert on gun laws. Fast and Furious took place in Arizona, which has some of the weakest gun laws. In particular, that's why it happened there, because Arizona is a useful place for Mexican Drug Cartels to buy guns legally and then move them across the border. There are a number of problems with the "State X has weaker laws than State Y" though. The first is that nowhere in the US has super strict laws, so comparing one to another isn't very useful. The Supreme Court has ruled a number of times regarding the Second Amendment and that prevents any state from implementing serious gun control, such as hand gun bans or whatever. The variation between states is more on requirements to get licenses, regulations on the sales (like types of info that is recorded), and so on. If you want to buy a gun, and you're over 18 and no criminal record, you can pretty much get any gun in any state. The only difference is how many hoops you have to go through first. Outside of availability laws, the only other differences I can think of are things like "Stand Your Ground" and "Conceal Carry" laws that can vary. Secondly, guns are highly mobile and transportation between states is readily available. Even if your state was super strict, traveling to a neighboring state isn't exactly a difficult thing for something you really want. Then there's the whole issue of sample size. Mass shootings (greater than 4 killed) total around 60 (63?). Spread across 50 states and 30 years of varying laws and you don't really have a lot of information to go on. Maybe New York has had 3 shootings, and Montana has had 0. But given the population differences, the different laws in place prior to those shootings, and the different time periods they took place in; it doesn't really give you any basis by which to compare Montana's laws and New York's. It reminds me of another one of those Facebook images one guy I know posted yesterday. I didn't respond cause I didn't feel like getting involved on Christmas Eve, but it said something about how Chicago, IL has more gun crimes committed than Phoenix, AZ even though Chicago has stricter laws; therefore laxer laws prevent gun crimes. When in fact it ignores that guns are still readily available in both places, and most importantly, Chicago not only has a larger population, it has 4x the population density of Phoenix. So of course Chicago has more crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
I think when their friend mentioned strict gun control zones, they're talking specific places like schools and such. It's an asinine attempt at a comparison though. It's true, but they're not connected. I mean mass shootings quite often take place at schools and malls, so you might as well say "Have you realized spree shootings often happen where young people congregate?." Both are true, but they're not actually connected in any meaningful way. Of particular note though http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf page 8. While there's no such thing a strict gun control in the US, states that generally have stricter laws have the lowest gun death rates, both suicide and homicide. Meanwhile, look at what states round out the most violent 10. Of course there's other factors at hand like poverty, but, lower rates of gun ownership probably help. Meanwhile, here's a list of gun ownership numbers by state to go along with the graph above http://usliberals.about.com/od/Election2012Factors/a/Gun-Owners-As-Percentage-Of-Each-States-Population.htm
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
prahanormal posted:My cousin tried to argue today that the areas with the strictest gun control are the areas these shootings keep happening. Does anyone have good resources about that? All the stuff I found on google were crap. One of them occurred on a loving military base. They literally had tanks and missile launchers and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
I've read that pools and beaches that are staffed by lifeguards have more drowning deaths than unstaffed pools. The more firefighters to respond to a fire, the larger the fire ends up being. Maybe they're the problem, not the solution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:One of them occurred on a loving military base. They literally had tanks and missile launchers and poo poo. I'm all for gun control and all but I keep seeing people say things like this and it's not really true the way it seems people mean it. Sure troops have weapons and such fairly often for training (although these weapons are very closely tracked) but military ammunition is very strictly controlled. It's only handed out at practice ranges and every round is theoretically accounted for although this isn't necessarily the case in practice. If you were to be caught with live ammunition outside of the practice ranges (which tend to be quite far away from the "civilized" parts of the bases) you'd get in a poo poo-ton of trouble although I'm not 100% sure what. I do remember a guy in my unit back in 2004 who tried to sneak off with a magazine of 5.56mm to shoot out of his AR-15 so he could show his civilian buddies what tracers were like. I'm not 100% sure what happened to him but he lost all of his rank and wasn't allowed to have a weapon for quite a while after that. Also, private firearms are strictly controlled on military bases. When I lived in the barracks if I wanted to have guns I had to keep them in the unit weapons vault with the military's weapons if I wasn't taking them out to go shooting. It's almost as if the military recognizes how dangerous it is for people to keep guns laying around their house, especially young men who tend do drink lots of alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:I think when their friend mentioned strict gun control zones, they're talking specific places like schools and such. It's an asinine attempt at a comparison though. It's true, but they're not connected. I mean mass shootings quite often take place at schools and malls, so you might as well say "Have you realized spree shootings often happen where young people congregate?." Both are true, but they're not actually connected in any meaningful way. Thanks. Along with those is this Politifact article, or rather the chart in the article: http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2012/dec/23/facebook-posts/facebook-posting-handgun-deaths-has-out-date-numbe/ I don't have anything specific to say at the moment; but I came across that article and thought the country comparison chart may be useful so I wanted to throw it out there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
prahanormal posted:My cousin tried to argue today that the areas with the strictest gun control are the areas these shootings keep happening. Does anyone have good resources about that? All the stuff I found on google were crap. The main factor here is that places which are made gun free zones are areas already likely to have mass shootings. They're places which are densely populated. The tl;dr version is that people don't target gun free zones, they target densely populated areas. Oh - and gun free zones just plain don't work. They're not enforced in any meaningful way. It's another example of a way to make people feel good, when not actually doing anything. I rarely argue that gun free zones help anything, but I stand by the fact they don't encourage anything either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:
Well that's gonna happen when you pay people per fire attended...
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:The more firefighters to respond to a fire, the larger the fire ends up being. Maybe they're the problem, not the solution. Actually a British study found that fires on average got worse when firefighters turned up. This was a while ago though and led to firefighters being taught a bit more about fire science.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
^ That sounds interesting, why does it get worse?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:^ Because there is a right way and a wrong way to fight a fire. If you spray water at the base of a fire in a room that is on fire it makes things worse. And if you break windows of rooms that are on fire it makes things a lot worse as it adds oxygen. Firefighters had a habit of doing both these things. In general they now know better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 09:03
|
|
|
So glad I browsed through this thread before visiting my family and inlaws. For the first time in years I was confident enough to defend my views, instead of just staring into my mashed potatoes. I swear every time I try to have a political discussion with my family, they just shut me down with "when you have kids you'll understand." I sure hope I dont turn into a xenophobic taint when I have kids 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
pug wearing a hat posted:I sure hope I dont turn into a xenophobic taint when I have kids You won't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
pug wearing a hat posted:So glad I browsed through this thread before visiting my family and inlaws. For the first time in years I was confident enough to defend my views, instead of just staring into my mashed potatoes. What exactly do they think it is that you do not understand because you do not have children? How does having children contribute to that understanding?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 09:19
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:What exactly do they think it is that you do not understand because you do not have children? Just your basic prison industrial complex stuff. Innocent until proven guilty goes right out the window once you have a family to protect I guess????
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:
I think they mean your love of your children will make you yearn for a fascist or theocratic police state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
According to a British study, becoming a father to a daughter turns your views more liberal than if you had a son.quote:By analysing data in the British Household Panel Survey, they found that 67 per cent of parents with three sons and no daughters voted for Labour or the Liberal Democrats. So it seems like there is a connection between political outlook and parenthood - how and why, we don't know, but just having children doesn't automatically turn you into an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:What exactly do they think it is that you do not understand because you do not have children? There's the idea among conservatives that anybody who has liberal ideals only does so because of youthful naiveté. Along with this goes the expectation that once liberals "grow up" they'll also wise up and become proper adult conservatives. When they then meet adults who are also inexplicably liberals they'll just shift the goalpoasts in what constitutes being a "grown-up" to things like being financially independent, being married, having children, owning a house, etc. edit: messed up a sentence. Perestroika fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Dec 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 15:52
|
|
|
I know that when I have children I certainly want them to grow up in a world run by right-wing, conservative/neoliberal types. Imagine how great it would be for them to have zero privacy, be completely unable to learn things in school that aren't directly related to getting jobs, taught be completely intolerant and distrustful of everybody, accept today's perverse bastardisation of Christianity as the One True Religion, to have no understanding of their own sexuality, to suffer entirely preventable and treatable illnesses because I can't afford their healthcare, prepare to be arrested and imprisoned for saying mean things on the Internet and to rack up massive amounts of debt before they even set foot in the workplace. Then when they're old enough to work they can have all the joy of working for longer hours for lower pay and no benefits, and enjoying the freedom of being able to be sacked any time someone above them feels like it. That's if they can get a job. According to Our Glorious Leader David Cameron, young people should be prepared to live with mum and dad for longer so they can save money but simultaneously need to be looking for work further from home (despite transport being unfeasibly expensive). And through all of these things they can learn to hate any of their fellow humans that happen to be disabled/gay/an immigrant/a muslim/on welfare/a single parent or whatever the scapegoat of the month is. Because it's obviously those people that are responsible for their present situation; it couldn't be the fault of those perfect 'Wealth Creators'. I'm clearly just too stupid and naive to not want all this glorious Freedom right now, while I don't have children.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:19 |
|
|
Perestroika posted:There's the idea among conservatives that anybody who has liberal ideals only does so because of youthful naiveté. Along with this goes the expectation that once liberals "grow up" they'll also wise up and become proper adult conservatives. When they then meet adults who are also inexplicably adults they'll just shift the goalpoasts in what constitutes being a "grown-up" to things like being financially independent, being married, having children, owning a house, etc. I used to get that from my Aunts and Uncles. Then I became a firmware engineer, got married, had kids, own a house, and I'm even more liberal now than I was before. Something about wanting good schools for my children and healthcare for me so I can live longer for my children. Oh, and I didn't magically start hating taxes when I started making decent money! Sure it sucks to pay higher taxes, but I understand marginal tax rates and I am glad *some* of my money goes to better roads and education. They where even aghast that I voted to RAISE my own taxes for a school levy! This is in Boise Idaho where all but one county voted red in the election.  Although now I get to tell them that yes, I do meet all their requirements for becoming a conservative and no; I am not more conservative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 18:21
|
|
