|
Who What Now posted:Cool casual homophobia, bro. So now you're going to get all upset and offended by that but not by your fellow travelers advocating and mocking suicide, and the outrageous racism displayed by the side that wants to keep the poors and minorities disarmed ?
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
Tezzor posted:By "trolling" gun nuts mean "sincerely posting my awful idiot opinions" You seem pretty easily trolled by that. Pauline Kael posted:So now you're going to get all upset and offended by that but not by your fellow travelers advocating and mocking suicide, and the outrageous racism displayed by the side that wants to keep the poors and minorities disarmed ? I advocate immediate suicide for anyone who wants it because god drat get on with it already or don't but don't loving draw it out for attention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:You seem pretty easily trolled by that. Unironically agreed
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:So now you're going to get all upset and offended by that but not by your fellow travelers advocating and mocking suicide, and the outrageous racism displayed by the side that wants to keep the poors and minorities disarmed ? The most important priority is that you be disarmed because you're a danger to yourself and all those around you, and the poster child for "SHOULD NOT HAVE A GUN"
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:"America was the real bad guy in WW2 because this holocaust denial website says so"- Forums user Tezzor. Actually, America was not the bad guy in WWII, but its decision to drop nuclear weapons on civilian populations was an indisputably evil and unnecessary act that cannot be justified by any coherent factual or moral argument, and, as this is true, the only thing that mass murder apologists can seize on is that I unknowingly used a bad source among many, and bring it up solely in an attempt to drag my moral stance down to their slavering, subhuman level; not because it disputes anything I said, or because it makes any of their own arguments stronger, but because as blood-crazed cave goblins who enjoy making excuses for mass murder, they inherently dislike moral righteousness. Pretty severe error you made here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:So now you're going to get all upset and offended by that but not by your fellow travelers advocating and mocking suicide, and the outrageous racism displayed by the side that wants to keep the poors and minorities disarmed ? I bet you'd cry with joy to see open-carrying blacks and Puerto RIcans in the street, topping your arsenal. It'd be a flutter in your heart of pure love, and no other emotion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:So now you're going to get all upset and offended by that but not by your fellow travelers advocating and mocking suicide, and the outrageous racism displayed by the side that wants to keep the poors and minorities disarmed ? I'm upset when you do all those things, so IDK what you're on about. Well, no, not upset, that's far too strong a word. More concerned for humanity that such morons exist among us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Why is the not racist gun supporter refusing to tell me what suspicious thing Mr. Martin was doing that night?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
There's an interesting discontinuity here. The gun advocate argues that guns are necessary for self-defense, but also accepts that certain people, such as the mentally ill and convicted felons, should not have access to guns. Thus, they should not be allowed to defend themselves. Indeed, given that the gun advocate argues that police will not defend you, this is really saying that it's okay to do whatever you want to someone with depression, or who was convicted for stealing a car, because they have no right to defend themselves against you, and no one will defend them. Either guns aren't really necessary for self-defense, and gun advocates are lying, or suffering from a mental illness makes you subhuman. I'm sure the conservatives, well aware that this is one of the few chances they will have to freak out the squares, will go for the latter, or else squeak about how liberals are fat, gay, women, work blue-collar jobs if at all, etc. And the rest will call this a shitpost, because talking back to missionaries is morally wrong. You're supposed to sit back and be converted.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:There's an interesting discontinuity here. The gun advocate argues that guns are necessary for self-defense, but also accepts that certain people, such as the mentally ill and convicted felons, should not have access to guns. Thus, they should not be allowed to defend themselves. Indeed, given that the gun advocate argues that police will not defend you, this is really saying that it's okay to do whatever you want to someone with depression, or who was convicted for stealing a car, because they have no right to defend themselves against you, and no one will defend them. Either guns aren't really necessary for self-defense, and gun advocates are lying, or suffering from a mental illness makes you subhuman. I'm sure the conservatives, well aware that this is one of the few chances they will have to freak out the squares, will go for the latter, or else squeak about how liberals are fat, gay, women, work blue-collar jobs if at all, etc. And the rest will call this a shitpost, because talking back to missionaries is morally wrong. You're supposed to sit back and be converted. Anyone released from jail should be able to have their rights restored. Anyone incapable of having their rights restored (Likely to reoffend, have reoffended many times, completely loving nuts, etc.) should be held until such time as they are capable of rejoining society with full rights. Generally speaking, our mentally ill populace should be in some sort of supervised treatment if they're incapable of taking care of themselves and engaging safely in all their rights, up until they are capable. Should they never reach such a point, they should be in a state where they are protected by someone else from threats external and internal. I just don't know where all the money will come from to pay for all this supervision. Legalize weed and tax it like cigarettes and I bet you'd come up with like... a third of the cash in a week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:18
|
|
PCOS Bill posted:Anyone released from jail should be able to have their rights restored. Anyone incapable of having their rights restored (Likely to reoffend, have reoffended many times, completely loving nuts, etc.) should be held until such time as they are capable of rejoining society with full rights. This doesn't really address the substance, you know. Either self-defense is an absolute right and felons should get guns back on release and suicidal people should have all the guns they want, or self-defense can be abrogated, or guns are not necessary for self-defense. Those are your only choices, and derailing about how depressed people should be put into camps won't get you out of it.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Gunthread II: The Sound A Wet Fart Makes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
PCOS Bill terrible opinion #137 Institutionalize all mentally ill people. For safety.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:PCOS Bill terrible opinion #137 I wouldn't mind more resources made available for mentally ill people. It would give you a place to go to before posting stupid extreme strawmen of peoples interweb statements.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:PCOS Bill terrible opinion #137 I think institutions should be banned- the world is better off with 'mentally ill' people, meaning people who aren't made to be office drones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:PCOS Bill terrible opinion #137 If someone is so mentally ill that they are a danger to themselves or those around them, yes, they need to be supervised for their/everyone's sake.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
PCOS Bill posted:Anyone released from jail should be able to have their rights restored. Anyone incapable of having their rights restored (Likely to reoffend, have reoffended many times, completely loving nuts, etc.) should be held until such time as they are capable of rejoining society with full rights. Might as well just save time and say blacks with a misdemeanor don't ever get to have their rights back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Might as well just save time and say blacks with a misdemeanor don't ever get to have their rights back. You have a really weird tic
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:41
|
|
JohnGalt posted:I wouldn't mind more resources made available for mentally ill people. It would give you a place to go to before posting stupid extreme strawmen of peoples interweb statements. Okay. Here's a question for you. As a "faghot", why would I want gay-haters to be welcomed into the political party I sympathize most with? Isn't all this "gun control hurts Democrats" just an incrementalist effort to annihilate liberalism?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:41
|
|
PCOS Bill posted:If someone is so mentally ill that they are a danger to themselves or those around them, yes, they need to be supervised for their/everyone's sake. Okay. Why should we do this over the objections of psychologists and psychiatrists, who only institutionalize when the person is in imminent or continuous danger of suicide? Or are you suggesting that suicide-prone people be given means to make killing themselves easier? Or are you just not a coherent thinker?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay. Why should we do this over the objections of psychologists and psychiatrists, who only institutionalize when the person is in imminent or continuous danger of suicide? Or are you suggesting that suicide-prone people be given means to make killing themselves easier? Or are you just not a coherent thinker? PCOS Bill posted:If someone is so mentally ill that they are a danger to themselves or those around them, yes, they need to be supervised for their/everyone's sake. I'm not sure you're literate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Actually, America was not the bad guy in WWII, but its decision to drop nuclear weapons on civilian populations was an indisputably evil and unnecessary act that cannot be justified by any coherent factual or moral argument, and, as this is true, the only thing that mass murder apologists can seize on is that I unknowingly used a bad source among many, and bring it up solely in an attempt to drag my moral stance down to their slavering, subhuman level; not because it disputes anything I said, or because it makes any of their own arguments stronger, but because as blood-crazed cave goblins who enjoy making excuses for mass murder, they inherently dislike moral righteousness. Pretty severe error you made here. Just when I feel like you can't get any dumber, you come out with this. I only wish I had a time machine to send you to any number of battles in the pacific war. I thought I was done with it, but this thread is a gift that keeps on giving. I mean, youve managed to make perrenial TFR pariah PCOS Bill sound reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:47
|
|
PCOS Bill posted:I'm not sure you're literate. So, you're picking the second option. Why, exactly, is it just to make suicide easier for depressed people? Wait, I probably shouldn't have mentioned justice to a conservative.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Oh hey Effectronica, our previous conversation got interrupted when you got probated because of your violent tendencies, but I would like to pick it back up. I believe when we left off you were claiming that the NRA encourages domestic terrorism. Just wanted to remind you that I am still waiting on a source for this. Feel free to respond whenever you are able 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
PCOS Bill posted:You have a really weird tic I'm not sure pointing out where your position is rife with potential abuses against racial minorities is a "tic" but whatev
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:49
|
|
stealie72 posted:Just when I feel like you can't get any dumber, you come out with this. I only wish I had a time machine to send you to any number of battles in the pacific war. I wish I had a time machine to send you and everyone else who advocates targeting civilians to get hanged with Tojo as a fellow war criminal. It's cool that Radhabinod Pral was, in the end, right about the war crimes trials.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay. Here's a question for you. As a "faghot", why would I want gay-haters to be welcomed into the political party I sympathize most with? Isn't all this "gun control hurts Democrats" just an incrementalist effort to annihilate liberalism? The better question is: why do gun haters resort to attacking party politics when discussing the specific issue of gun control? It's almost like the idea of being the group that wants to limit personal freedoms/rights causes you to break down and scream about the big bad Republicans. It would be easier to admit that you're all closiet racists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:So, you're picking the second option. Why, exactly, is it just to make suicide easier for depressed people? Wait, I probably shouldn't have mentioned justice to a conservative. How are you reading "people who are a danger to themselves should be in some sort of supervised care" as "make suicide easier for depressed people"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:50
|
|
Rahu posted:Oh hey Effectronica, our previous conversation got interrupted when you got probated because of your violent tendencies, but I would like to pick it back up. Alas, I only respond when people can hide their disingenuity better. Or you're just stupid. Wait, why am I saying "or"? Those two conditions are rampant among gun advocates.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'm not sure pointing out where your position is rife with potential abuses against racial minorities is a "tic" but whatev Everything can be used to target any particular group, good luck coming up with something that can't be used against a subset of the population unfairly. Though maybe, just maybe, if that group wants to not be targeted by laws that punish criminals they could stop breaking the laws?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Ah yes, i forgot that asking for sources is disingenuous, apologies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:51
|
|
PCOS Bill posted:How are you reading "people who are a danger to themselves should be in some sort of supervised care" as "make suicide easier for depressed people"? You're saying that major depression should only be used to deny guns to someone who is institutionalized, meaning that you are in favor of making suicide easier. Use logic, hard though it is.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:52
|
|
Rahu posted:Ah yes, i forgot that asking for sources is disingenuous, apologies. Do you think this fools anybody? I mean, for gently caress's sake, you didn't even pretend to read my posts, you miserable cockroach.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:The better question is: why do gun haters resort to attacking party politics when discussing the specific issue of gun control? Because the vast majority of gun owners are single issue voters who vote straight ticket R, which is the party that is consistently trying to take away the rights from minorities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
PCOS Bill posted:Though maybe, just maybe, if that group wants to not be targeted by laws that punish criminals they could stop breaking the laws? See, there are words here, but all I can see is a gigantic *fffrrrrrrrrttttttt* Also, score for basically using the Legality defense. Maybe if those Jews had stopped being criminal scum that violated the law, they wouldn't have been murdered.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
PCOS Bill posted:Everything can be used to target any particular group, good luck coming up with something that can't be used against a subset of the population unfairly. Tell me more about how blacks can't help but commit crimes and how you totally aren't a racist 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Do you think this fools anybody? I mean, for gently caress's sake, you didn't even pretend to read my posts, you miserable cockroach. Please settle down with the personal attacks friend, we are all gathered here in this thread to discuss how guns are cool and rad Now to focus on your the words in your post, that I read. quote:The NRA does more to encourage domestic terrorism than Anwar al-Awlaki ever did For this example we will assume that Anwar al-Awlaki did absolutely nothing to encourage domestic terrorism, as that is the least amount of encouragement possible. To encourage domestic terrorism more than zero, they must have done something, anything at all, to encourage domestic terrorism. I am asking you what that is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Rahu posted:To encourage domestic terrorism more than zero, they must have done something, anything at all, to encourage domestic terrorism. I am asking you what that is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:There's an interesting discontinuity here. The gun advocate argues that guns are necessary for self-defense, but also accepts that certain people, such as the mentally ill and convicted felons, should not have access to guns. Thus, they should not be allowed to defend themselves. Indeed, given that the gun advocate argues that police will not defend you, this is really saying that it's okay to do whatever you want to someone with depression, or who was convicted for stealing a car, because they have no right to defend themselves against you, and no one will defend them. Either guns aren't really necessary for self-defense, and gun advocates are lying, or suffering from a mental illness makes you subhuman. I'm sure the conservatives, well aware that this is one of the few chances they will have to freak out the squares, will go for the latter, or else squeak about how liberals are fat, gay, women, work blue-collar jobs if at all, etc. And the rest will call this a shitpost, because talking back to missionaries is morally wrong. You're supposed to sit back and be converted. This is a good post that has yet to be addressed. PCOS Bill?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
Tezzor posted:Actually, America was not the bad guy in WWII, but its decision to drop nuclear weapons on civilian populations was an indisputably evil and unnecessary act that cannot be justified by any coherent factual or moral argument, and, as this is true, the only thing that mass murder apologists can seize on is that I unknowingly used a bad source among many, and bring it up solely in an attempt to drag my moral stance down to their slavering, subhuman level; not because it disputes anything I said, or because it makes any of their own arguments stronger, but because as blood-crazed cave goblins who enjoy making excuses for mass murder, they inherently dislike moral righteousness. Pretty severe error you made here. Hmm.
Tell us Tezzor, have you ever shot your niece because she wanted to date a dashing young Stormtrooper instead of you? Have you ever fled to Argentina via U-Boat? Are you a vegan?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 03:06
|
|