By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SanAndreasX said:
Rab said:

The Est Democrats have played their role in the eventual Roe v Wade being overturned through decades of refusal to codify into law this bill when they had the chance 

All that would have honestly done is speed this outcome up. Instead of having a "right to privacy" defined by case law that stood as long as judges were willing to respect precedent and standing, anti-abortion activists would have had a clear legislative target to be ripped to shreds by a right-leaning Supreme Court.

You do realize that your line of thought means that in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court should not have been able to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson due to there being a legal precedent for Segregation.



Around the Network
the-pi-guy said:
iron_megalith said:

If you want a great example of John Oliver's bullshit, look no further than the time when he was making fun of Trump for saying tearing down statues was a slippery slope. Boy did his joke age like milk.

I'm not sure how pointing out a slippery slope fallacy has aged like milk.

Pointing out a slippery slope fallacy? It actually happened. LMAO. I remember reading about removing a statue of Thomas Jefferson because of being a symbol of a slave owner. Can't have statues of slave owners! But we can have a statue of a violent criminal/drug addict that OD'd from Fentanyl though!

the-pi-guy said:
iron_megalith said:

Oh and thanks for labeling me a conservative in this thread. Never fails to make me laugh when someone does this shit.

And do you think you're not a conservative, or do you just take issue with being labelled?

If it's the former, then I really have to wonder what you think you are. Considering how you only ever pop in here to make fun of left-wingers, regardless of what they're talking about, it doesn't seem like there's much of an alternative.

It doesn't matter what I consider myself. It's as irrelevant as having pronouns in the Bio. At the end of the day, people like you will label any person who aren't insane like you in alignment with you as conservative. The word is used in a derogatory way to make it seem that this person they labeled as such has an invalid argument.

Whatever the definition of Conservative is on this thread, I'll just take it as a compliment. Conservatives are thankfully have a much broader spectrum now thanks to how toxic the far left has been. Because if conservatives were just the typical religious zealots that most leftists have in their head then I'm a fucking outcast. Like one of those Black folks who aren't Black enough for some Black folks. :)

Speaking of which, it's amusing to see all the blatant racism from the left against Justice Thomas right now! Black Lives Matter! But only to the people who are on my side of the fence!

Or from the famous words of our President, "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me, or Trump, then you ain't black!".

banned by the-pi-guy

Last edited by the-pi-guy - on 28 June 2022

Hiku said:

Sub shop worker killed after dispute over mayo, police say - CNN

Man got too much mayo on his sandwich. Pulled out a gun and shot two of the workers.

"It's jUsT a MeNtAl H3aLtH pR0BleM" Part: 856478389

iron_megalith said:

It doesn't matter what I consider myself. It's as irrelevant as having pronouns in the Bio. At the end of the day, people like you will label any person who aren't insane like you in alignment with you as conservative. The word is used in a derogatory way to make it seem that this person they labeled as such has an invalid argument.

Whatever the definition of Conservative is on this thread, I'll just take it as a compliment. Conservatives are thankfully have a much broader spectrum now thanks to how toxic the far left has been. Because if conservatives were just the typical religious zealots that most leftists have in their head then I'm a fucking outcast. Like one of those Black folks who aren't Black enough for some Black folks. :)

Speaking of which, it's amusing to see all the blatant racism from the left against Justice Thomas right now! Black Lives Matter! But only to the people who are on my side of the fence!

Or from the famous words of our President, "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me, or Trump, then you ain't black!".

Whether someone is a religious zealot or not is irrelevant.
People who check a number of boxes are referred to by the term that applies the most. If you think there's a better one to describe you, feel free to share.
For example, I'm much more of a progressive than a liberal.

But if you're not willing to share, or you don't have one, then it's pretty pointless to complain.

The more of these boxes someone checks

- Pro guns
- Against universal healthcare
- Against unions
- Against taxing billionaires more
- Always complaining about black people/minorities/LGBT
- Pro Trump
- Pro forcing raped 11 year olds to give birth to their rapist child
(Actual story btw Bolsonaro outraged after rape victim, 11, has abortion | The Straits Times)
- Believe in angels
etc, etc

the more heavily they're considered conservatives.

And this is done to save time, as few will check every box, and no one can be arsed to list all those things every time they refer to someone.
Like I said, feel free to provide the definition you think fits best. If not, whatever.

Who says I'm complaining? I already stopped taking this shit seriously when you banned me. I don't give 2 shits about what people say in this thread except for entertainment. It's basically a Walmart Twitter in here. :)



Oh and going back to that article you posted. You're probably against guns. I'd like to invite you to my beloved shithole of a home country called the Philippines. It's hard as hell to legally get a gun there but you can count on the syndicates and their goons to have guns all the time. I know some folks here are for completely banning guns. To that I say. Good fucking luck.



Hiku said:
iron_megalith said:

Who says I'm complaining? I already stopped taking this shit seriously when you banned me. I don't give 2 shits about what people say in this thread except for entertainment. It's basically a Walmart Twitter in here. :)

1.) I have never banned anyone on my own accord.
I have issued bans after a group of moderators collectively reached a decision. As it works in every case.

And in your case it was after saying something to the effect of "we need to take up arms for a cvil war", etc
Inciting violence of that sort is nowhere near ok.

2.) Whatever you want to call it. You didn't agree with the labeling, so it was explained to you how and why it is done, and that you're free to suggest your own correction.

Your posts still need to follow the rules, such as trying to keep your discussions productive.
If you write half an essay about not wanting to be called progressive, and then offer 0 alternatives to it, then that conversation is redundant.

Whatever. People were actually justifying the destruction and violence going on during that time. So I guess I was stupid enough to go against that and root on people to stand their damn ground against such bullying.

My posts aren't probably make the top 10 essays of the shit that's being typed here. So like I said. I don't give a fuck what people label me as. You can't stop me from finding it ridiculous and funny.

Last edited by iron_megalith - on 28 June 2022

Around the Network
Hiku said:
iron_megalith said:

Whatever. People were actually justifying the destruction and violence going on during that time. So I guess I was stupid enough to go against that and root on people to stand their damn ground against such bullying.

My posts aren't probably make the top 10 essays of the shit that's being typed here. So like I said. I don't give a fuck what people label me as. You can't stop me from finding it ridiculous and funny.

If your answer to protests and riots over a short period of time is civil war, then yeah that's pretty stupid.

Ah yes. Failing to consider who's the victim and assailant. Classic. Context is really out the window. :)



Hiku said:
iron_megalith said:

Oh and going back to that article you posted. You're probably against guns. I'd like to invite you to my beloved shithole of a home country called the Philippines. It's hard as hell to legally get a gun there but you can count on the syndicates and their goons to have guns all the time. I know some folks here are for completely banning guns. To that I say. Good fucking luck.

That argument is like saying "I invite you to Japan where 2 bullets are fired per 10 years".

And we're not talking about crime syndicates here are we?
It's an average guy, who pulled out a gun because his sandwich had too much mayo.

It's this kind of day to day gun violence that is inciting the conversation of tougher gun legislation in the US, who has some of the most lax gun laws in the world.

USA has had 288 school shootings between 2009-2018.
Your country has had less than 1.

Whatever!

https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/204011-motorcycle-riding-in-tandem-crimes-numbers-pnp/

In case you're lazy to read or you find a way to twist this shit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maguindanao_massacre#:~:text=The%20Maguindanao%20massacre%2C%20also%20known,of%20Mindanao%20in%20the%20Philippines.

There's more of that by the way.


So I'm gonna say this here before someone "unexpectedly" twists my words again. Yes, innocent people dying by gun violence is a tragic thing.

However, if you think in your magical lala land that more restrictions or completely banning guns will solve the issue, I once again say, Good Fucking Luck.

If a criminal didn't have a gun, they will find a way to get a gun. If there is no criminal, the gun cannot shoot by itself.

Last edited by iron_megalith - on 28 June 2022

Hiku said:
iron_megalith said:

Ah yes. Failing to consider who's the victim and assailant. Classic. Context is really out the window. :)

No, I'm saying cvil war is one hell of an over reaction.

iron_megalith said:

Whatever!

https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/204011-motorcycle-riding-in-tandem-crimes-numbers-pnp/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maguindanao_massacre#:~:text=The%20Maguindanao%20massacre%2C%20also%20known,of%20Mindanao%20in%20the%20Philippines.

There's more of that by the way.

Wow, I wonder how something like this could have gotten out of control.

Oh wait...

'

Part of the perceived problem in the US besides the lax gun laws is the gun culture.
And it goes without saying that if the president urges people to shoot drug dealers, and that he will reward them for it, is certainly not going to help with that.

Ah yes. Ah yes. Completely ignoring the fact that Duterte only sat in office in 2016.


I knew you'd do this!

https://www.r-bloggers.com/2015/02/philippine-infographic-recapitulation-on-incidents-involving-motorcycle-riding-in-tandem-criminals-for-2011-2013/



Lemme guess. People assume I support Duterte here? Too bad, we over as soon as he started sucking Xi's dong, started taking loan traps from China, and letting China use our fucking soil for their man made islands in the Scarborough shoal.

Last edited by iron_megalith - on 28 June 2022

Whoops. I dropped this article. How clumsy of me.

https://www.philstar.com/nation/2015/02/06/1420842/riding-tandem-kills-anew-qc

Noynoy Aquino is still president here by the way.

There's more of those in local news when I still lived there. It'll take time to look for those since local news was kinda crap at archiving shit online during this period. But, I don't' want to give this shit more than what it deserves.

I made my point. It's up to you clowns to have your delusions shattered if your camp for some reason were able to do a complete ban on guns. You will once again keep finding scapegoats to blame when the incident occurs.

Last edited by iron_megalith - on 28 June 2022