Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

KLAMarine said:

>When did I suggest we should all have guns? Could you copy-paste the exact point where I suggested such a thing?

Uh, well, you asked.

"The weak can't naturally beat the strong, so they create something to help that will. What do you do when you're the strong person who's now the weak one because you're up against a gun? You get yourself a gun or make something even stronger.

The only real way to completely fix this is to make everyone and everything 100% equal, which you can't do. Until then, weapons of any kind will be used and will be seen as a solution and a problem."

Your whole logic train runs like this.

Strong dominates weak > weak obtains gun to dominate strong > strong is now the weak > new weak/former strong obtains gun to dominate against new strong/former weak = we all have guns.

We are the only developed nation on Earth with this irrational band-aid mentality.

And if you really want to go back to the actual point of it all....if people are the actual problem, why the hell aren't we trying to fix the people?  If people are the problem, why the hell do we want to give the problem lethal weapons?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network

It ain't even that deep fam

I, for one, thought that original NRA comment was fun and witty.

Last edited by tsogud - on 23 August 2019

 

SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

The problem is that the strong don't need weapons, but the weak do. It's why weapons were invented in the first place. The weak can't naturally beat the strong, so they create something to help that will. What do you do when you're the strong person who's now the weak one because you're up against a gun? You get yourself a gun or make something even stronger. 

The only real way to completely fix this is to make everyone and everything 100% equal, which you can't do. Until then, weapons of any kind will be used and will be seen as a solution and a problem.

To face palm or not to face palm?

You just missed the whole point just as KLAMarine did. 

I got the point, but I don't think you got where I took it. Yes, you could just ban all guns based on your original statement, that's one way to look at it. The problem is why weapons were made in the first place, and who made them. To remove guns you're just asking for other weapons to be used, or for new even more efficient weapons to be made in there place, unless you create a perfectly equal society this time around, which you won't be able to do. I'm simply looking at the bigger picture, not just the statement in a bubble.

vivster said:
EricHiggin said:

The problem is that the strong don't need weapons, but the weak do. It's why weapons were invented in the first place. The weak can't naturally beat the strong, so they create something to help that will. What do you do when you're the strong person who's now the weak one because you're up against a gun? You get yourself a gun or make something even stronger. 

The only real way to completely fix this is to make everyone and everything 100% equal, which you can't do. Until then, weapons of any kind will be used and will be seen as a solution and a problem.

Sometimes a solution can be worse than the problem. I mean what kind of things have guns in civilian hands actually fixed?

You can actually draw a really great parallel here to the middle east. Remember when shipping lots and lots of guns to a fragile region did not solve anything and instead fucked up everything for everyone forever? Same can be seen in the US.

Notice how the effort currently is to de-arm everyone to fix the problem that was introduced by guns? The US hilariously gets really furious when it doesn't manage to de-arm other countries. But yeah, self reflection and noticing big fat irony is not a strong suit of the men in power.

So you're saying the weak should pay reparations to everyone who's died from a man made weapon? Are the weak to blame for all this, since it's they who created weapons in the first place so they had a more equal chance, if not advantage, to defend themselves?

The problem I think a lot of the gun haters don't understand is that many would give up their guns if there was a reasonable plan that would guarantee their safety as well as the safety of others. No plan comes close to accomplishing that though, and simply saying less people will die isn't good enough when it comes to each individual person and their own safety. If less people die, but one of those who dies is a past gun owner, who now was defenseless against the weapon used against them, then why give up their gun in the first place?

Paperboy_J said:
EricHiggin said:

The problem is that the strong don't need weapons, but the weak do. It's why weapons were invented in the first place. The weak can't naturally beat the strong, so they create something to help that will. What do you do when you're the strong person who's now the weak one because you're up against a gun? You get yourself a gun or make something even stronger. 

The only real way to completely fix this is to make everyone and everything 100% equal, which you can't do. Until then, weapons of any kind will be used and will be seen as a solution and a problem.

If you're weak, get strong.  Isn't that what conservatives like to tout anyways?

The minority of boneheads maybe, but in general conservatives do think you should do what you can to strengthen yourself in many ways. Obviously some can't physically or mentally reach the same level of strength though, which is why things like weapons got created. No system that the people will agree to live in will fix that problem either. Taking away guns at best will just be a temporary fix.

SpokenTruth said:
KLAMarine said:

And I completely agree with you that both statements nullify each other: guns don't kill/protect people, people do. But then why pursue a ban? If I want a gun, don't get in my way! The gun is not a difference maker or in your words, "irrelevant in either case".

It's like pursuing a ban of plastic bags because insurance fraud exists. Why? Plastic bags are a non-factor, clearly.

In conclusion, an NRA member might actually agree with you that the statements cancel each other out. People are the problem, not guns.

So you get the point and then talk about things that are not the point.  Why? 

It has nothing to do with everyone having a gun or banning all guns.  It is merely a nullification of NRA rhetoric.  You first decided to use the nullification tangentially as a means to suggest we should all have guns (which was not the point).  I retorted that your logic equally meant we could ban guns (also, not the point).  I never said we should ban them.  It was a continuation of your own logic based on the nullification. Banning them or arming everyone has nothing to do with the point.

Oh, and your plastic bag / insurance fraud analogy?  That's a non-sequitur.

Well what was the point in saying "If guns don't kill people, people do.....then guns don't protect people, people do."? Especially since you directed it at the NRA since they are using that as a scapegoat to allow guns in your eyes. It would only make sense if you thought having guns was a bad thing. Considering it's people protecting people, why would you need guns?

If it has nothing to do with people having guns or banning guns, then it really doesn't make any sense. You're not nullifying anything if you're not proving they're wrong, and the only way to do that is to prove things would be better without guns, since their point is that bad people who use guns kill people, not good people with guns. The slogan is just a shorter, more to the point version of that.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 23 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.

tsogud said:

It ain't even that deep fam

I, for one, thought that original NRA comment was fun and witty.

It is fun and witty, but that's not the reason for the reaction to it. Instead of them replying with something like you did here, they are defending it as if it is quite deep and has deeper meaning to them. Along with everyone else who was defending it as well.



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.

SpokenTruth said:
Snoopy said:

When Trump and Republican congress lifted regulations on jobs and lower taxes, the unemployment rate went down

This again?  Ok, I'm going to show you something.  And you're either going to learn from it or ignore it (again).  If you ignore it again, you will be labeled as being willfully ignorant and your standing for debate will remain tarnished.

Trump, his tax cuts and deregulation didn't do anything different than the trend it was already going in.  The rate of descent is the same.  If his policies had a direct impact, the rate of decent would have increased. 

You are either being lied to and accepting it because it feeds your cognitive bias or you do know the facts and are intentionally lying out of cognitive dissonance.

KLAMarine said:

So if they make no difference either way, we can buy and sell guns like we buy and sell most other goods? Awesome!

Yep, awesome.  We can also ban them all and it;s all good.

According to that graph, the economy was better when Republicans controlled both the house and the presidency. Thank you for proving my point I guess. Don't know why you would do that for.



Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
tsogud said:

It ain't even that deep fam

I, for one, thought that original NRA comment was fun and witty.

It is fun and witty, but that's not the reason for the reaction to it. Instead of them replying with something like you did here, they are defending it as if it is quite deep and has deeper meaning to them. Along with everyone else who was defending it as well.

Imo Spokentruth was playing along at first but then KLAMarine took it somewhere else. Idk it just seems  like the type of thing someone should just know that it's a light-hearted witty comment.



 

tsogud said:
EricHiggin said:

It is fun and witty, but that's not the reason for the reaction to it. Instead of them replying with something like you did here, they are defending it as if it is quite deep and has deeper meaning to them. Along with everyone else who was defending it as well.

Imo Spokentruth was playing along at first but then KLAMarine took it somewhere else. Idk it just seems  like the type of thing someone should just know that it's a light-hearted witty comment.

Possible but unlikely since they could have just mentioned something like you did and it would have went away. As for just knowing it's not serious, that's like saying people should just know when Trump is trolling. Good luck with that. lol



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.

EricHiggin said:

I got the point, but I don't think you got where I took it. Yes, you could just ban all guns based on your original statement, that's one way to look at it. The problem is why weapons were made in the first place, and who made them. To remove guns you're just asking for other weapons to be used, or for new even more efficient weapons to be made in there place, unless you create a perfectly equal society this time around, which you won't be able to do. I'm simply looking at the bigger picture, not just the statement in a bubble.

------

Well what was the point in saying "If guns don't kill people, people do.....then guns don't protect people, people do."? Especially since you directed it at the NRA since they are using that as a scapegoat to allow guns in your eyes. It would only make sense if you thought having guns was a bad thing. Considering it's people protecting people, why would you need guns?

If it has nothing to do with people having guns or banning guns, then it really doesn't make any sense. You're not nullifying anything if you're not proving they're wrong, and the only way to do that is to prove things would be better without guns, since their point is that bad people who use guns kill people, not good people with guns. The slogan is just a shorter, more to the point version of that.

So, no you, just as KLAMarine, did not get the point.  Nor understand the nullification of the statement itself, it seems.  So I'll repeat what I said to KLAMarine for you.

Your whole logic train runs like this.

Strong dominates weak > weak obtains gun to dominate strong > strong is now the weak > new weak/former strong obtains gun to dominate against new strong/former weak = we all have guns.

We are the only developed nation on Earth with this irrational band-aid mentality.

And if you really want to go back to the actual point of it all....if people are the actual problem, why the hell aren't we trying to fix the people? If people are the problem, why the hell do we want to give the problem lethal weapons?

Snoopy said:
SpokenTruth said:

This again?  Ok, I'm going to show you something.  And you're either going to learn from it or ignore it (again).  If you ignore it again, you will be labeled as being willfully ignorant and your standing for debate will remain tarnished.

Trump, his tax cuts and deregulation didn't do anything different than the trend it was already going in.  The rate of descent is the same.  If his policies had a direct impact, the rate of decent would have increased. 

You are either being lied to and accepting it because it feeds your cognitive bias or you do know the facts and are intentionally lying out of cognitive dissonance.

According to that graph, the economy was better when Republicans controlled both the house and the presidency. Thank you for proving my point I guess. Don't know why you would do that for.

Oh, so a bit of both: cognitive bias and cognitive dissonance. I really didn't suspect both but here we are.

I guess you could be unaware of when the Trump tax cuts took effect or when his Republican led congress trimmed regulations....but I'm trying to give you some expectations of knowledge on the subject. But if not, see that "2018" on the the far right of the X axis?  That's when the tax cuts took effect.  Some of the deregulation took place just prior to that "2018" marker.  Now, do you see a trend in the data plot points that started back in 2010?  You do?  Good. 

You know what?  I'm just going to make you a new chart....for clarification. 

Blue box = Obama term.
Red box = Trump term.
Yellow line = Trump deregulation.
Orange line = Trump tax cuts.
Black line = Unemployment rate trend.


I hope it's clearer for you now.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

KLAMarine said:

"It has nothing to do with everyone having a gun or banning all guns. It is merely a nullification of NRA rhetoric."

>And I think you actually strengthened NRA rhetoric: the gun as a non-factor means banning guns will achieve nothing with regards to deaths. You stated earlier

"The point is that if you proclaim that people are the problem (not gun), then you must also claim people are the solution (not gun). It's basically a nullification of the NRA rhetoric."

>If I were an NRA member, I'd add "Yes! I will happily claim guns are neither the problem nor solution: they're a non-factor! So leave guns out of this topic! Don't even bring them up!"

"You first decided to use the nullification tangentially as a means to suggest we should all have guns (which was not the point)."

>When did I suggest we should all have guns? Could you copy-paste the exact point where I suggested such a thing?

You're focusing on the people part of the equation.  His joke is about the gun part.  The point of the joke is that guns are nonconsequential.  So the argument that guns shouldn't be banned because they are used to protect people literally flies in the face of the same logic that the NRA touts with their claim that "guns don't kill people".  

And yes the NRA does argue about the people part of the equation, but the crucial part of their campaign is that guns are essential, which according to their logic they aren't.

Snoopy said:

According to that graph, the economy was better when Republicans controlled both the house and the presidency. Thank you for proving my point I guess. Don't know why you would do that for.

According to the graph:

-Unemployment started declining from 2009.

*2010 elections, would lead to 2011 Republicans controlling the house*

-Unemployment continues to decline the same way it did before.

So basically since the trend was constant, but since Republicans were in charge during part of it, it's all thanks to them.  

It's like watching a baseball team start scoring 3 runs every single inning, and then giving all the credit to the one guy who joined during the 3rd inning.

Not to mention, you are literally giving credit to the coach who only came in the 8th inning.  

Because according to you, everything that is good that happens during a Republican or a Democrat (anything in charge) is thanks to a Republican.  

And conversely everything bad is thanks to a Democrat, regardless of who's in charge.  

The frustrating thing about this, is that you're the only one claiming that your side is good and the other side is bad.  No one else has claimed that every economic success was thanks to Democrats, and every economic failure is because of Republicans.

Last edited by the-pi-guy - on 23 August 2019

SpokenTruth said:
KLAMarine said:

>When did I suggest we should all have guns? Could you copy-paste the exact point where I suggested such a thing?

Uh, well, you asked.

"The weak can't naturally beat the strong, so they create something to help that will. What do you do when you're the strong person who's now the weak one because you're up against a gun? You get yourself a gun or make something even stronger.

The only real way to completely fix this is to make everyone and everything 100% equal, which you can't do. Until then, weapons of any kind will be used and will be seen as a solution and a problem."

Your whole logic train runs like this.

Strong dominates weak > weak obtains gun to dominate strong > strong is now the weak > new weak/former strong obtains gun to dominate against new strong/former weak = we all have guns.

We are the only developed nation on Earth with this irrational band-aid mentality.

And if you really want to go back to the actual point of it all....if people are the actual problem, why the hell aren't we trying to fix the people?  If people are the problem, why the hell do we want to give the problem lethal weapons?

Uh, well, you asked.

"The weak can't naturally beat the strong, so they create something to help that will. What do you do when you're the strong person who's now the weak one because you're up against a gun? You get yourself a gun or make something even stronger.

The only real way to completely fix this is to make everyone and everything 100% equal, which you can't do. Until then, weapons of any kind will be used and will be seen as a solution and a problem."

>This was not my quote. This looks to be EricHiggin's below...

I think you may be talking to too many people at the moment...

EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:

I'm starting to think you missed the point.  I'll start over.

The NRA loves to state the following rhetoric to the point it has become a mantra for many, "Guns don't kill people, people do."

The converse then must also be true, "Guns don't protect people, people do."

The end sum of each of these statements suggests the cause of death and protection against death is people and the gun is therefore irrelevant in either case.  

The point is that if you proclaim that people are the problem (not gun), then you must also claim people are the solution (not gun). It's basically a nullification of the NRA rhetoric.

The problem is that the strong don't need weapons, but the weak do. It's why weapons were invented in the first place. The weak can't naturally beat the strong, so they create something to help that will. What do you do when you're the strong person who's now the weak one because you're up against a gun? You get yourself a gun or make something even stronger. 

The only real way to completely fix this is to make everyone and everything 100% equal, which you can't do. Until then, weapons of any kind will be used and will be seen as a solution and a problem.