Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

Jaicee said:
Machiavellian said:

If we go by what you have presented it would appear that we could reduce mass shootings by getting these young guys laid.  If that is the case, something needs to be done right away.

That would be the incel movement's pseudo-logic, yes, to which end they've devised all sorts of proposals like "state girlfriend programs" and state-sponsored rape houses and other psychotic solutions that seem ripped right out of The Handmaid's Tale.

I, on the other hand, feel that what we actually need to do is reach a collective understanding that no one is simply entitled to a yes answer.

Why would you need to go to such extremes when the oldest profession is available since man and woman walked this earth.  If you find a young adult exhibiting the symptoms you stated, you just buy him some ass, case close.  Back when I was young you had to fight to get to that magic box, these days you basically just have to show up.



Around the Network
Jaicee said:
sundin13 said:

Wouldn't women making more for their work favor the interests of women?

Nope, not if sex "work" is the only field that does so! Like I said, it reflects what we as a society value in women, and the consequences of that value system redound to all women, not just the prostituted ones.

First of all, some individuals choose to work in the sex trade. They are not "prostituted". This all seems fairly demeaning towards those women who utilize their agency to make that choice. What exactly is your take on the individuals who seek these positions of their own volition?

Could you argue that there are sexist issues within what society considers to be "valuable" work? Sure, but I don't really think the sex trade is a good example of that. It is the desire for sex which causes female pay to inflate within these positions, not a sort of reflection of what we believe to be a woman's "true worth". You'll have to put forth a lot more evidence if you wish to make an argument for that...



Machiavellian said:

Why would you need to go to such extremes when the oldest profession is available since man and woman walked this earth.  If you find a young adult exhibiting the symptoms you stated, you just buy him some ass, case close.  Back when I was young you had to fight to get to that magic box, these days you basically just have to show up.

While I don't agree with your solution, it does nonetheless present an interesting question that I'm afraid you'll have to ask them because I don't know the answer.

I mean I guess because then they'd be "MTGOWs" and nobody would pity them anymore or...something like that, probably.



the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

"It's a little bizarre to me for someone to point out that the latter shooting wasn't right wing, when most people are either concerned about gun violence in general regardless of political motivation or they're concerned about politically motivated shootings rising due to right wing fear propaganda."

So people are concerned about the politically motivated right wing violence specifically, while at the same time they're not?

I think what you mean to say is conservatives tend to think private things should remain private, like property.

>So people are concerned about the politically motivated right wing violence specifically, while at the same time they're not?

No.  I used a wonderful word called "or".  Some people are specifically concerned about right wing violence.  Some other people are concerned about violence in general.  

>I think what you mean to say is conservatives tend to think private things should remain private, like property.

No, that comment was in the context of sexism.  There are a small number of conservatives that strongly believe that women belong to the man they married.  That is what I mean.  I'm not saying that most conservatives feel that way, but there are a small number who do.  

Well you didn't use that wonderful word called "other(s)" before, which you did to explain yourself this time around, so that would change how it reads. I'm still not sure why pointing out political motivation is odd, since it seems it's being pointed out for other reasons in other situations.

This is more clear now as well. A liberal friend of mine would surely fall under this 'my wife is basically my property' belief. Any guy that looks at her in just the wrong way or if he even catches her flirting in the slightest, he loses his shit. So I must then ask if any liberals feel this way? Any at all, even a small minority. 

the-pi-guy said:
Jaicee said:

I think you're right and wrong. My assessment is:

-Right wing misogyny is the belief that women should be the private property of individual men (e.g. fathers).
-Left wing misogyny is the belief that women should be the public property of all men (e.g. prostitution, pornography, surrogacy, beauty pageants, etc.)

In other words, it's essentially the difference between Mike Pence's conservative Christian view of women and how he refuses to even be seen alone with one who isn't his wife and all that and Donald Trump's polar view of women; Donald Trump, who pressured his latest wife to appear do a nude photo shoot for a major magazine, that sort of thing, so obviously doesn't mind sharing. (Trump HAD been a lifelong left wing Democrat before this decade, it may be worth remembering. Also the former owner of a strip club, beauty pageants, a family inheritance originating from his grandfather's brothel in New York, etc. etc.)

From his membership in a pornogrind band and left wing politics generally, we can gather that the Dayton shooter embraced the left wing version.

>is the belief that women should be the public property of all men (e.g. prostitution, pornography, surrogacy, beauty pageants, etc

Supporting the legalization of prostitution, or supporting those other things doesn't promote the belief that women should be public property.  

I've never heard of the idea that women should be public property.  

>we can gather that the Dayton shooter embraced the left wing version

Doesn't mean the shooting was politically motivated.  

Well by this logic someone could say the El Paso shooting wasn't necessarily politically motivated either. Sure they may have written a manifesto, but how does that prove anything? The individual clearly has issues, so much so they mowed down a bunch of innocent people with a gun at a store, and when they write down some stuff it's supposed to be taken seriously? Some people today have this idea that if you don't have a degree or professional title, your knowledge or opinion on certain matters is less worthy or useless altogether, so why should a crazy person be believed when they write an explanation as to why they did something? How does anyone know what that lunatic was really thinking and feeling? Why would you take their word for it?

I'm not saying if a manifesto is written that it should be completely disregarded, but what exactly does it take to pin down motive to a mass shooter, who clearly isn't right in the head?

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 08 August 2019

The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Jaicee said:
Torillian said:

So your argument would be that these forms of sex work (porn, prostitution, surrogacy) should be illegal as they are detrimental to the equality of women as a whole?

Essentially. I'm not in favor of punishing the prostituted women or what have you for being sucked into these sorts of fields, as I really feel like that's a kind of victim-blaming, but I do think it should be a criminal offense to buy sex, that online pornography should be blocked, that no one should be allowed to hire an impoverished woman to use her as a womb, have her endure a full pregnancy and post-partum depression, and then take what is by all rights and reason her child away from her, etc. No one should be allowed to do these kinds of sick, parasitic things! There's no pay that's high enough to justify their existence.

That's some really hot takes you have here in this thread.

1) prostitution: If you're a little bit familiar with the history of prostitution you should know that abolishing it is basically impossible, illegalising prostitution only creates a huge black market without any government control or standards for sex workers.

2) What's your problem with porn?

3) surrogacy: Sure the exploitation of poor women is a problem but it can be minimised if you force the companies to take proper care of their surrogate mothers. I also fail to see how surrogacy is sexist or misogynist in its nature. Doesn't surrogacy primarily help women who can't bear a child themself?



Around the Network
sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:

Eh I guess you're right. I really hear about shootings cases not getting resolved so it's possible that a lot of them don't get cleared. But it would be better if the rates were more specific because there's a chance that gun related crimes have a higher solve rate. Like you pointed out they make 70% so it's probably not that liekely.

Yeah that's how background checks work. They look at someone's criminal history and check if they're mentally ill.

I was reading through this summary of a study conducted https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180208120842.htm. They couldnt give a percentage or a liekly hood but the methods the way the discussed different methods make it sound like the likelihood for them to gather dna information is high.

Do you think that nobody commits crimes who doesn't have a disqualifying criminal history?

As for your study, the unfortunate thing about it is that it isn't actually about DNA. So thats a bit awkward...

But to answer my own question, in my experience, less than 5% of firearms produce a usable DNA profile.

No. There are people that commit crimes for the first time but the odds of a criminal committing multiple crimes are really high because of how we treat them.

The study links methods they use for DNA testing and it works for that so it works to identify the guns.

What experience?

SpokenTruth said:
jason1637 said:

1. If there was a background check the shooting probably would have not happened in teh first place so there is no need for a gun registry.

2.If the shooter got away they probably took the gun with them and if they left it you could look at the dna on the weapon to find who they are.

3. No I don't think if someone sold a gun is valuable information since they didn't do the actual shooting.

1). How the hell does that work?  If a person gets a background check they will never commit a gun related crime? 

2). DNA on the gun?  DNA from what?  Unless the killer bled all over it, spit all over it or ejaculated all over it, left a hair follicle with attached bulb, you're not getting a DNA sample.  And that's under ideal conditions.  Weather, time, usage, etc...all degrade the usable DNA markers.  Again, life isn't like CSI.

3). So who they sold it to isn't valuable information?  Person A bought gun.  Sells gun to Person X.  Person X kills Person Y.  Person A can show investigators he sold the gun to Person X.  Or vice versa.  Registration can show Person X is now the current owner of the gun. Not valuable?  Tell that to an investigator or prosecutor.

jason1637 said:

1). Yeah that's how background checks work. They look at someone's criminal history and check if they're mentally ill.

I was reading through this summary of a study conducted https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180208120842.htm. They couldnt give a percentage or a liekly hood but the methods the way the discussed different methods make it sound like the likelihood for them to gather dna information is high.

1). Correct.  Still not sure how you correlate a background check with preventing gun related crime and absolving the validity of a registry for investigations.

2). That's a article on ballistics - the lands, groves, strike face scratches, ejector scratches, etc...that match bullet or casing with the gun that discharged them. Every gun leaves a 'fingerprint' upon the bullets they fire.  By test firing the same gun/ammunition, you can match, with a high degree of certainly. a weapon to a given shooting.  Read the articles you Google before linking to them.

1. People who commit a crime once have a high chance of doing it again. Most gun owners never partake in gun violence so background checks do work.

2. What's the CSI? Is that some type of TV show or movie? People don't just pick up guns and shoot they've had contact with their guns multiple times so DNA can be left on it.

3. Well if you registered guns and owners you'd have to have some type of bar code or gun code on the weapon to identify it. There are almost 400 million guns already in circulation and shooters would just take gun registration number or code out. Now if you want the government stalking what you buy thats on you but a lot of people dont.

4. The odds of a criminal committing another crime are pretty high. With a background check you'd be able to prevent the shooting and there would be no need for a registry.

5. The study links methods they used for DNA testing and it works for that so it works to identify the guns.



Jaicee said:

I think it's very obvious that treating women as say wombs for hire by the general public or as commercial receptacles for penises are definitely specifically gendered forms of dehumanization that functionally treat women as the property of the male public at large. As much seems self-evident to me. I don't know how one can miss that. I mean when the consumer is a man and the product for sale is a woman's body, I just think it's very clear. 

Except liberals don't want women to be forced into these jobs.  Just that women should be allowed to make the choice to pursue that work if they want to.

And not just that women are able to pursue those jobs, but also they have absolute control over how they pursue their jobs.  

Female porn stars don't have to have sex with anyone.  They only have sex if they consent to doing so.  

Jaicee said:

To your second point, the fact that market forces spontaneously favor the interests of men in the context of a larger, patriarchal social reality is neither surprising nor a good excuse as far as I'm concerned. (You may have noticed that I'm not the biggest fan of the free market.)

There is absolutely a patriarchal social issue where women are viewed that way, but you'll find that countries where women have more freedoms to pursue sex work have more rights for women in general.

Jaicee said:

Essentially. I'm not in favor of punishing the prostituted women or what have you for being sucked into these sorts of fields, as I really feel like that's a kind of victim-blaming, but I do think it should be a criminal offense to buy sex, that online pornography should be blocked, that no one should be allowed to hire an impoverished woman to use her as a womb, have her endure a full pregnancy and post-partum depression, and then take what is by all rights and reason her child away from her, etc. No one should be allowed to do these kinds of sick, parasitic things! There's no pay that's high enough to justify their existence.

Some of that is horrific.  

But some women genuinely like making pornography.  A lot of women enjoy watching pornography. 

Just because you find those professions distasteful doesn't mean they aren't enjoyed by women.  

And just because men tend to be the ones buying porn, ie, there's a patriarchal preference for porn, that doesn't mean there aren't women who genuinely enjoy making or watching porn.  

EricHiggin said:

Well you didn't use that wonderful word called "other(s)" before, which you did to explain yourself this time around, so that would change how it reads. I'm still not sure why pointing out political motivation is odd, since it seems it's being pointed out for other reasons in other situations.

This is more clear now as well. A liberal friend of mine would surely fall under this 'my wife is basically my property' belief. Any guy that looks at her in just the wrong way or if he even catches her flirting in the slightest, he loses his shit. So I must then ask if any liberals feel this way? Any at all, even a small minority. 

Well by this logic someone could say the El Paso shooting wasn't necessarily politically motivated either. Sure they may have written a manifesto, but how does that prove anything? The individual clearly has issues, so much so they mowed down a bunch of innocent people with a gun at a store, and when they write down some stuff it's supposed to be taken seriously? Some people today have this idea that if you don't have a degree or professional title, your knowledge or opinion on certain matters is less worthy or useless altogether, so why should a crazy person be believed when they write an explanation as to why they did something? How does anyone know what that lunatic was really thinking and feeling? Why would you take their word for it?

I'm not saying if a manifesto is written that it should be completely disregarded, but what exactly does it take to pin down motive to a mass shooter, who clearly isn't right in the head?

>Well you didn't use that wonderful word called "other(s)" before, which you did to explain yourself this time around, so that would change how it reads. I'm still not sure why pointing out political motivation is odd, since it seems it's being pointed out for other reasons in other situations.

My original sentence was "they're concerned about A or they're concerned about B".  Putting "others" doesn't make sense in that sentence.  "others" would make sense if the sentence was "they're concerned about A and others are concerned about B."  

>So I must then ask if any liberals feel this way?

Are there some?  Absolutely.  But I'm actually talking about something slightly different.  Some fundamentalist Christians view women as basically birthing canals that aren't allowed to get jobs.  That viewpoint, you can certainly find some liberals who feel that way, but it's less common.

>so why should a crazy person be believed when they write an explanation as to why they did something?


The person drove 9 hours to a major town near the border, and published a manifesto about said town minutes before shooting.  There is a clear political implication there.  

Just because someone is crazy doesn't mean they don't have reasons that make sense to them.  

I'm not saying the second shooting definitely isn't left wing politically motivated, I am saying there is no evidence so far for that to be the case. 



Baalzamon said:

Does the US have more fun casualties? Absolutely. But let's keep in mind that we are talking about 5 murders per 100,000 people.

Fun casualties? That is one way to frame it, I guess you aren't the one tasked to clean up the mess... So...

Baalzamon said:

All of my guns have been purchased for range shooting and/or hunting deer/small game. None have been purchased to kill human beings. Just like my golf clubs weren't purchased for that...but they could absolutely do harm if I rampaged with them. Numerous people were stabbed in a mall by me with somebody who only had a knife.

Are you seriously making the argument that unless we can end all crime that we shouldn't ban guns?

That is like saying unless we can ban all drugs we shouldn't have drug laws.

Baalzamon said:

Nobody has given me a valid answer yet regarding why 1-2 guns. It's as if you are saying it should be zero, but you know that this stands zero chance of passing (because it's a meaningless number and will just anger half of Americans), therefore you just want to pass something, anything at all, that will at least start to get the number down to zero. Having 1-2 guns per American will largely do...nothing to prevent these mass shootings, as many of them are occurring with 1-2 guns anyways.

The limit should be dependent on the argument that you can present to the table on why you need a certain amount of weapons.

But if you are a collector or using them for sport, I don't see why the limit should only 1-2, provided you have undertaken the appropriate training, have them registered and secured.

Baalzamon said:
4 dead in southern California after a stabbing rampage.

Those 4 might beg to differ regarding the lethality argument used earlier when discussing guns vs knives.

We have a lot larger problem than guns that is leading to all of this. I'm not even close to knowledgeable enough about it all to know what specifically is the issue, but it certainly seems to be more prevalent in the US than elsewhere. And it absolutely is not limited to just shootings.

This argument is a logical fallacy, I will let you work out which fallacy it treads on.

Crime will exist irrespective of whether guns exist or not... And is not an appropriate excuse to retain a free-for-all on gun ownership.
What is trying to be done is like trying to cure one type of cancer (guns), not all forms of Cancer at once. (All other forms of crime)

Here in Australia if you were to go to the Supermarket and buy a knife, you are required to provide evidence that you are 18+ years or older for example, this directly reduced under-age knife-related crime.

In short everything needs to be weighed on a case by case basis on it's individual merits, your argument seems like a clone from the NRA which is full of holes.

Baalzamon said:
To add to the argument, gun restriction, while it absolutely appears to reduce HOMICIDE with a gun, doesn't appear to reduce violent crime at all.

It's not supposed to end all violent crime. It's meant to reduce gun-related crime... Please learn the difference.

Baalzamon said:

So I've got to ask (even though this trade-off isn't necessarily inevitable), would you be more comfortable with a higher gun homicide rate but substantially lower violent crime, or vice versa?

Citation needed.

Baalzamon said:
I've personally lived in a city (where I went to college) where people frequently got beat up and robbed if they walked around at night. It wasn't at all enjoyable. Ironically, this was also the 1st time I ever kept a gun in my house as my neighbor's were being robbed in the middle of the night etc and I didn't want to feel completely defenseless to this.

I think you should watch this which deconstructs your arguments entirely.









Jaicee said:
Torillian said:

So your argument would be that these forms of sex work (porn, prostitution, surrogacy) should be illegal as they are detrimental to the equality of women as a whole?

Essentially. I'm not in favor of punishing the prostituted women or what have you for being sucked into these sorts of fields, as I really feel like that's a kind of victim-blaming, but I do think it should be a criminal offense to buy sex, that online pornography should be blocked, that no one should be allowed to hire an impoverished woman to use her as a womb, have her endure a full pregnancy and post-partum depression, and then take what is by all rights and reason her child away from her, etc. No one should be allowed to do these kinds of sick, parasitic things! There's no pay that's high enough to justify their existence.

That's kind of authoritarian of you. You'd be taking the agency away from these individuals. Some of these individuals choose their work and profession. No doubt we can improve the lives of the individuals who work in these fields and we definitely should. But we shouldn't criminalize/demonize these fields of work and dehumanize these individuals because it would only cause harm to the women and men involved. Legalization of these practices means we can provide sufficient healthcare to these women and men to make sure they're safe and taken care of through legislation and regulations.

Sure it might be "parasitic" now but that's because these professions are viewed in a demeaning/dehumanizing way, the same way it seems you view them, and thus the individuals involved don't get the care they deserve because people just want to ban it rather than improving their lives through legalization and regulation.

I understand your argument, there's definitely a big element of misogyny and sexism in these professions, that's clear as day, but that won't be solved by criminalizing them and dehumanizing the people involved. You'd be taking it too far and it's just not logical and ethical to criminalize these professions.

Last edited by tsogud - on 08 August 2019

 

Baalzamon said:
To add to the argument, gun restriction, while it absolutely appears to reduce HOMICIDE with a gun, doesn't appear to reduce violent crime at all.

Britain and Wales, for instance have more than double the rate of violent crime as the US.

So I've got to ask (even though this trade-off isn't necessarily inevitable), would you be more comfortable with a higher gun homicide rate but substantially lower violent crime, or vice versa?

I've personally lived in a city (where I went to college) where people frequently got beat up and robbed if they walked around at night. It wasn't at all enjoyable. Ironically, this was also the 1st time I ever kept a gun in my house as my neighbor's were being robbed in the middle of the night etc and I didn't want to feel completely defenseless to this.

>So I've got to ask (even though this trade-off isn't necessarily inevitable), would you be more comfortable with a higher gun homicide rate but substantially lower violent crime, or vice versa?


I'm not talking about banning guns, but I would prefer a higher violent crime rate over a higher gun homocide rate.  20 people getting stabbed but living is preferable over 10 people dying from getting shot.  

Knives can do a lot of damage, but guns make it a lot easier.