Political Memes/Sayings you wish would die.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

harmonic:
I said that you people use this relatively minor issue

You think banning abortion is a minor issue? I mean, someone is raped, let's say at age 13. She's pregnant. So in comes the social-conservative bandwagon, wagging the moralistic finger "No, you slut, you can't have an abortion, we've banned it. You must have that baby, probably become infertile for the rest of your life, and be traumatised heavily.".

Is that a minor issue? I think it's a more of a "How on earth can these people be so cruel. Why isn't it legal to highfive their face untill they get it?"-important issue.

Seriously, for one thing they need to read up on how teen mothers end up. I'm yet to discover the first-ever person who wants to ban abortion and is even aware of that. Which has lead me to say they're just anti-abortion because they don't know better.

harmonic:
Fathers have rights too. Anyone ever care about that?

Yeah, me, right here. Just no rights over someone's else's life and body. As a consequence of that, a future father who wants an abortion, and she doesn't, must have a right to walk away and not be recognized as the father.

Voila, everyone keeps their freedom, and equality.

Compare that to a situation where a religious command strips half the population of an essential human right, and creates the situation where random chance (contraceptives failing) or crime (rape) can ruin your life forever.

I was in that situation once you know. (because maybe an example can create the empathy the anti-abortion peeps seem to lack)
Just before I was due to depart to Afghanistan, my wife, then girlfriend, had severe stomach cramps. Turned out her IUD had shifted. There was a risk of pregnancy. If that had been the case it would've been an abortion, it was the first thing she said when we left the GPs office, and my decision before we even walked out the door. We had no idea if we were going to stay together, I'd barely graduated, didn't even have a master's degree and was scheduled to risk getting my head shot off, she was still studying, neither of us had a steady income, no house, nothing.

Fortunately it turned out to be nothing, but quite frankly I think that if it had, and someone had tried to accuse us of murder because we're responsible adults, who use our brain, who plan such things and will have kids when we can actually support and raise them, there'd probably have been a murder indeed, because that anti-abortion creep would've gone out the nearest window.

harmonic:
*snip*

Here, let me extend your brilliant point:
"So it's not okay to hit and rape women, but it's okay to cut them open, rip out their innards and pump them full of poisons, basically."
Well, yeah. When we're talking about, say, breast cancer treatment after having given informed consent.

Oh, so you weren't talking about vacuuming a women who is pregnant, you were talking about vacuuming women while they're not yet developed. Well, that's completely different of course and a nonsensical comparison.

It is not about women's rights, it's about political blackmail, nothing more. "If you don't agree with abortion, or if you're okay with it and simply don't like OUR rules, you are anti-woman." And it is a shame that these wedge issues are so stubbornly tied to party lines, as if you are okay with abortion, you also have to be okay with liberal criminal incompetence in financial matters (at best) or deliberate economic rape of America (at worst).

Actually, I think it's lovely. The Social Conservatives have held the USA back for far too long. It's about time there was some pressure put on them. It's not like Republicans have to tow the Social Conservative line, you know.
There are people who are more socially Liberal (or socially Libertarian, if you prefer to call it that instead) in the Republican party. If the Republicans as a party move beyond those backwards views and arguments, if they more consistently kick people like Akin in the head for their idiotic remarks, I'm sure the Republicans can regain a lot of women voters.

As for incompetence regarding financial matters, I can only laugh. The Democrats suck, but at least they aren't as bad as Republicans when it comes to fiscal responsibility. I know the talking point is that Republicans are supposed to be good on this, but they are not. They waste money on things that pay out to their friends and have awful returns on investment.

As for "Liberal", I'm not sure why you bring that up. Since when is this about ideology? I thought we were talking about the parties. Isn't one of the main gripes with the two parties that they don't represent their respective bases? Isn't one of the main gripes with the Republicans that they don't "properly stand for Conservative principles"? Don't worry: The Democrats don't stand for proper Liberal views, either. You get fucked from both directions, I just happen to think the Republicans are way, way worse.

Remember that I consider myself a Social Democrat and am from Europe. I look at the USA's two-party system and shake my head. What, I would get to vote for the right-wingers or the right-wing extremists? Both of which don't give a toss about civil liberties, education, worker's rights, infrastructure etc.? Great choices there.

Blablahb:
Is that a minor issue?

In the sense that it's an issue regarding a minor, I guess... >_>

"The right to own guns protects defends us from tyranny." Gun supporters always go on about this as if it were a given, but it isn't.

Skeleon:
snip

Yes, I know there are libertarian-leaning Republicans. I am one of them. Stay out of peoples' bedrooms just as you should stay out of their wallets. Individual responsibility. Unification (we are all Americans and we're in this together) rather than class/demographic warfare. (rich white men are the devil) Merit over forced equality. Social freedoms, not social revenge.

We agree on two things: The two party system sucks, and both parties are somewhat similar in the political spectrum. However, I always wonder... at what point will you be happy with how liberal and authoritarian America becomes? Just how much more powerful and pervasive do you want the federal government to be, and how much smaller and more anemic do you want the private sector to be?

You, the German, know a very different set of circumstances. First of all, I have immense respect for Germany and Germans in general. Not just because I find your attitudes much more humble, warm, and friendly than other Europeans, not just because my visit to Germany blew away Italy, England, and Russia by a mile, but because the country has managed to become Europe's preeminent power even with some immense disadvantages.

However, Germany is still small compared to the US, in population and especially in geographical size. It is a rare gem in Europe in that it's not a unitary state, but it is still quite a bit easier to govern. Maybe there is a centralization versus federation debate there, but it can't be nearly as dramatic as ours is. Think about the size of my country. To compare scope, you basically have to combine all of Europe (minus Russia) together into one huge country. Now think about how ridiculously diverse this hypothetical mega-country would be, and which city would be its capital. Now think about the German people having to bow down to, say, a powerful centralized government in Antwerp, Barcelona, London, or whatever. Do you think this distant federal government would have the German peoples' best interests in mind? (Especially considering the post war stigma that you people somehow still cling to, surely if the centralized power were in a German city, Europe would be up in arms at the possibility of a "fourth reich".) That is only a slightly more extreme version of what America faces, though, most Americans (and humans in general) seem to be more in favor of Authoritarian style governments.

Shaoken:

Father Time:

"Pro-Lifers are anti-women"

First off there are lots of pro-lifers who are women. Second if you actually listen to their arguments you'll see that the anti women claim isn't true. Their arguments are that fetuses should have basic legal protections from not being killed because they are technically human life.

In this case, this persists because it's always men who are the forefront of the anti-abortion movement. Every anti-abortion piece of legislation? It's a man signing it, surronded by other men and maybe one token woman (and the last major piece of legislation didn't even have that). For all of those pro-life women, none of them actually play a prominant part in the political processes. So you can trump those lines all you want, but the pro-life movement does itself no favours by having the ones with all the attention on them being white, old men, preachers and politicions.

So pro-life is anti-women because most of the vocal proponents are men?

Using that logic I can say that feminism is anti-men because most of its proponents are women.

And most politicians are men, so of course most of the pro-life politicians will be men.

Well I wish the trend of everything being called a meme when it's not would die, but I'm not sure if that counts.

Here are a few I see regularly and despise.

-"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
-"Young and naive become liberals, as they grow older and understand more they become conservative" (or something along those lines)
-Something about Democrat being the educated position, can't remember the wording of the quote.
-"It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

Oh and let's not forget that god fucking awful Epicurus quote about gods omnipotence that gets thrown around everywhere.

EDIT:

Father Time:

Shaoken:

In this case, this persists because it's always men who are the forefront of the anti-abortion movement. Every anti-abortion piece of legislation? It's a man signing it, surronded by other men and maybe one token woman (and the last major piece of legislation didn't even have that). For all of those pro-life women, none of them actually play a prominant part in the political processes. So you can trump those lines all you want, but the pro-life movement does itself no favours by having the ones with all the attention on them being white, old men, preachers and politicions.

So pro-life is anti-women because most of the vocal proponents are men?

Using that logic I can say that feminism is anti-men because most of its proponents are women.

And most politicians are men, so of course most of the pro-life politicians will be men.

I think you missed the point somewhat spectacularly here. The point is that men are the ones deciding on what a woman can/can't do with their body, and this is for some reason not met with scorn.

Realitycrash:

Seanchaidh:

Realitycrash:
It implies that those who are not Atheists believe such things are moral and right.

It's a riposte to the far older, far more widespread idea that "atheists don't have a moral compass" or "are immoral" because they lack the redemptive influence of Biblical teaching or fear of God. I'm not sure of the motivation behind imputing a less tenable point than that to such a sarcastic gibe.

Both are childish, both need to stop.

This only seems true when one imputes more meaning to the expression than is truly there. You have to straw-man both the Thor/ice giants meme and the other one you posted in order to think they're just so awful (or "childish") that they "need to stop".

You can fix that error. Will you?

Blablahb:

Father Time:
You can be anti abortion and an atheist.

You can be an atheist and still be lead by religious dogma. This has come past before, and it turned out that there were no secular reasons to want to ban abortion.
First you got there was 'wanting to protect life', but it was quickly shown those people didn't want to protect life at all, and only made an exception in the case of clumps of cells that are stuck in other people. (or in short: hypocrisy)

Not all pro-lifers are hypocrites. And 'fetuses should be given protection from death because they're human lives' is a secular argument.

Blablahb:

Father Time:
Are you even reading what I wrote or do you just have a pre-baked response? They think the fetus should have more or less the same legal protections as a baby.

And this claim is a smokescreen, a fraud, something they don't mean,

Oh stop pretending you're a mind reader.

Blablahb:

Father Time:
Why? There is a large gulf between 'we shouldn't be allowed to kill them' and 'we should pay for their healthcare'.

Ah yes, the libertarian approach to an abortion ban. To answer your question: No, there is not. Wanting to make abortion self-paid and banning it are effectively the same, because nobody can afford it.

That's bullshit. If elective surgery was so prohibitively expensive, nobody would get plastic surgery unless it was covered by health insurance (there are some accidents that require the victim get plastic surgery but that's not why everyone gets them).

Blablahb:

Again: Don't fall for trickery and smokescreens, look at what the measures will actually do.

Also, I keep asking, but it keeps turning out nobody is serious about that point of view. Ask them if you can rape them, they'll say no. Hypocrisy. If you want others to undergo that and be victimised again, one must be willing to have it done to himself as well. Anyone who's anti-abortion must either be a rape victim, must be willing to become a rape victim, or is a hypocrite who can't be taken seriously.

THAT'S FUCKING STUPID!

Being raped doesn't make the fetus any less of a fetus than one from consensual sex. Hell the hypocritical course would to be to ban abortion except for rape.

Blablahb:

Needless to say the latter category contains about 99,99% of all those who are anti-abortion.
Ask them if you can break their legs and they won't visit a hospital and fix it up themselves, and they'll not want that. Hypocrisy. Why do they want healthcare, but deny it to others?

Nobody is pro-people-getting-sick, what they object to is having to pay for other people.

Blablahb:

I mean, the debate against the anti-abortion mob is basically like creationism: It's a done deal.

Creationism is a matter of fact and what constitutes science. Abortion is a matter of opinion and ethics. They have no overlap.

The Gentleman:

Pro-life (at least until the same groups seek to expand insurance coverage, fix your schools, expand contraception, ban the death penalty, ban guns in their entirety, become reflexively anti-war, and support massive public health campaigns dealing with obesity and other diseases)

Most people who use guns don't kill people with them. Hell shooting is an Olympic sport.

Gold:
Well I wish the trend of everything being called a meme when it's not would die, but I'm not sure if that counts.

Here are a few I see regularly and despise.

-"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
-"Young and naive become liberals, as they grow older and understand more they become conservative" (or something along those lines)
-Something about Democrat being the educated position, can't remember the wording of the quote.
-"It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

Oh and let's not forget that god fucking awful Epicurus quote about gods omnipotence that gets thrown around everywhere.

EDIT:

Father Time:

Shaoken:

In this case, this persists because it's always men who are the forefront of the anti-abortion movement. Every anti-abortion piece of legislation? It's a man signing it, surronded by other men and maybe one token woman (and the last major piece of legislation didn't even have that). For all of those pro-life women, none of them actually play a prominant part in the political processes. So you can trump those lines all you want, but the pro-life movement does itself no favours by having the ones with all the attention on them being white, old men, preachers and politicions.

So pro-life is anti-women because most of the vocal proponents are men?

Using that logic I can say that feminism is anti-men because most of its proponents are women.

And most politicians are men, so of course most of the pro-life politicians will be men.

I think you missed the point somewhat spectacularly here. The point is that men are the ones deciding on what a woman can/can't do with their body, and this is for some reason not met with scorn.

A ban on murder is also deciding what you can and cannot do with your own body, as is bans on assault.

Another thing for the list is this stupid 'men don't get a say on abortion rights' crap. It's the very definition of ad hominem. That and it ignores the effects unwanted pregnancies have on men.

harmonic:
It was clear as crystal, just not to you. "Hit and rape" was just an example of a bad thing to do to women, as is using the Hoover to slurp them up when they're a fetus. There is no room for liberal moral superiority on this issue whatsoever.

This leads me to believe that you think a landlord should have more legal control over an apartment than a woman should have over her own uterus. Abortion is simply the exercise of a right to expel unwanted material from your own body. It's like an eviction.

Father Time:

The Gentleman:

Pro-life (at least until the same groups seek to expand insurance coverage, fix your schools, expand contraception, ban the death penalty, ban guns in their entirety, become reflexively anti-war, and support massive public health campaigns dealing with obesity and other diseases)

Most people who use guns don't kill people with them. Hell shooting is an Olympic sport.

And many teams are fielded, including from countries where guns are de facto banned. I think you'll keep your golds just fine if guns were banned.

Father Time:

Gold:

I think you missed the point somewhat spectacularly here. The point is that men are the ones deciding on what a woman can/can't do with their body, and this is for some reason not met with scorn.

A ban on murder is also deciding what you can and cannot do with your own body, as is bans on assault.

That is the easily one of the worst comparisons I have ever seen on the escapist. Ever. At least compare "choice over your own body" to suicide, you know, something self inflicted.

Father Time:
Another thing for the list is this stupid 'men don't get a say on abortion rights' crap.

No because that's stupid. NOBODY but the individual should have a say on abortion. Women shouldn't have a say either, it should be up to each and every person who is pregnant to decide if they want to have an abortion or not.

Father Time:
It's the very definition of ad hominem.

lol no.

Father Time:
That and it ignores the effects unwanted pregnancies have on men.

I'm willing to find some sort of answer for the men who didn't want the kid but are now stuck with it and child support, but the answer isn't to strip away a persons freedom of choice and body.

The Gentleman:

Father Time:

The Gentleman:

Pro-life (at least until the same groups seek to expand insurance coverage, fix your schools, expand contraception, ban the death penalty, ban guns in their entirety, become reflexively anti-war, and support massive public health campaigns dealing with obesity and other diseases)

Most people who use guns don't kill people with them. Hell shooting is an Olympic sport.

And many teams are fielded, including from countries where guns are de facto banned. I think you'll keep your golds just fine if guns were banned.

You think giving people less access to guns will lead to the same amount of golds?

Point is that most guns are used for legal purposes, so being pro-life doesn't mean being anti-gun.
Nobody is pro people getting shot, it's just debatable how much it'll help.

Leadfinger:
"The right to own guns protects defends us from tyranny." Gun supporters always go on about this as if it were a given, but it isn't.

I don't. I've NEVER cited that as my reason for support of firearm ownership. My support is purely for civilian self defense in light of the legal fact that police and military are in no way required to protect us.

Gold:

Father Time:

Gold:

I think you missed the point somewhat spectacularly here. The point is that men are the ones deciding on what a woman can/can't do with their body, and this is for some reason not met with scorn.

A ban on murder is also deciding what you can and cannot do with your own body, as is bans on assault.

That is the easily one of the worst comparisons I have ever seen on the escapist. Ever. At least compare "choice over your own body" to suicide, you know, something self inflicted.

If I want to punch someone in the face and the law says I can't, then it's restricting what I can do with my own body.

Gold:

Father Time:
Another thing for the list is this stupid 'men don't get a say on abortion rights' crap.

No because that's stupid. NOBODY but the individual should have a say on abortion. Women shouldn't have a say either, it should be up to each and every person who is pregnant to decide if they want to have an abortion or not.

Father Time:
It's the very definition of ad hominem.

lol no.

Father Time:
That and it ignores the effects unwanted pregnancies have on men.

I'm willing to find some sort of answer for the men who didn't want the kid but are now stuck with it and child support, but the answer isn't to strip away a persons freedom of choice and body.

I think you misunderstand me, I meant the argument that 'men should not be allowed to vote on abortion laws, only women's opinion should be considered etc.'.

Leadfinger:
"The right to own guns protects defends us from tyranny." Gun supporters always go on about this as if it were a given, but it isn't.

It's not a guarantee, but it'd definitely make it harder on the tyrants.

Father Time:

The Gentleman:

Father Time:

Most people who use guns don't kill people with them. Hell shooting is an Olympic sport.

And many teams are fielded, including from countries where guns are de facto banned. I think you'll keep your golds just fine if guns were banned.

You think giving people less access to guns will lead to the same amount of golds?

Yes. In case you missed it, you spend a lot of money on your sports teams to get your golds. I think you'll be fine.

Point is that most guns are used for legal purposes, so being pro-life doesn't mean being anti-gun.

30,000+ firearm-related deaths per year really isn't helping your case.

Nobody is pro people getting shot, it's just debatable how much it'll help.

And no one is pro-lung cancer, it's just debatable how cigarettes cause it (Fun fact: they've technically never been able to prove causal links between smoking and lung cancer in humans because they can't actually do a controlled study where they say "okay, we need you to smoke a pack a day to prove causation;" something about basic human rights, hence why you'll almost always see the work "linked" instead of "causes"). The statistics on gun violence in the US compared to other countries is fairly damning. And when you have people like this being the spokesmen for your side, it's probably time to put the guns away for good.

Anyways, that doesn't really negate the bulk my "pro-life" point. They say they're pro-life, but they seem to have no problem with death penalty (and, in extreme cases, murder), war, and other causes of death and poverty.

Father Time:

Gold:

Father Time:

A ban on murder is also deciding what you can and cannot do with your own body, as is bans on assault.

That is the easily one of the worst comparisons I have ever seen on the escapist. Ever. At least compare "choice over your own body" to suicide, you know, something self inflicted.

If I want to punch someone in the face and the law says I can't, then it's restricting what I can do with my own body.

image

Yeah, this is my limit.

Father Time:
If I want to punch someone in the face and the law says I can't, then it's restricting what I can do with my own body.

I think you also understand how that's not true. 'own body' means about or in your own body. That human right for instance bans legitimising rape (and that happens far more often than you think), torture, or obligatory invasive procedures. It's not about actions taken with your own body. It's about the integrity of the body.

It's the sort of thing that's mostly just aimed at third reich'ish totalitarian dictatorships who consider their people their property and utterly expandable, and the anti-abortion groups collide with it. That alone should say something.

I put the barrel to my temple every time I hear something about [X] privilege.
Naturally a fair amount of the time I spend on The Escapist is spent with a gun in hand.

The Gentleman:

Father Time:

The Gentleman:

And many teams are fielded, including from countries where guns are de facto banned. I think you'll keep your golds just fine if guns were banned.

You think giving people less access to guns will lead to the same amount of golds?

Yes. In case you missed it, you spend a lot of money on your sports teams to get your golds. I think you'll be fine.

You need to practice and if you do not have access to guns you can't practice as well.

The Gentleman:

Point is that most guns are used for legal purposes, so being pro-life doesn't mean being anti-gun.

30,000+ firearm-related deaths per year really isn't helping your case.

I said most, not all.

The Gentleman:

Nobody is pro people getting shot, it's just debatable how much it'll help.

And no one is pro-lung cancer, it's just debatable how cigarettes cause it (Fun fact: they've technically never been able to prove causal links between smoking and lung cancer in humans because they can't actually do a controlled study where they say "okay, we need you to smoke a pack a day to prove causation;" something about basic human rights, hence why you'll almost always see the work "linked" instead of "causes"). The statistics on gun violence in the US compared to other countries is fairly damning.

Correlation is not causation. Crime has been constantly going down in the U.S. since the mid 90s and there are tons of other factors that might effect the crime rate.

The Gentleman:

And when you have people like this being the spokesmen for your side, it's probably time to put the guns away for good.

Guilt by Association.

The Gentleman:

Anyways, that doesn't really negate the bulk my "pro-life" point. They say they're pro-life, but they seem to have no problem with death penalty (and, in extreme cases, murder), war, and other causes of death and poverty.

Yeah you can't call yourself pro life if you're for the death penalty.

Father Time:

Leadfinger:
"The right to own guns protects defends us from tyranny." Gun supporters always go on about this as if it were a given, but it isn't.

It's not a guarantee, but it'd definitely make it harder on the tyrants.

See what I mean! This proves my point.

Father Time, I challenge you to find two examples, aside from the American Revolution, where civilian ownership of firearms was decisive in overthrowing a tyranny.
captcha-cop an attitude

Father Time:

And when you have people like this being the spokesmen for your side, it's probably time to put the guns away for good.

Guilt by Association.

Congratulations, I believe you have just closed...hmmm, pretty much every thread on this subforum. I mean, I'm not going to name any names here for obvious reasons (I'm a selfish git who doesn't want to get mod wrath for naming and shaming so I'll be deliberately vague), but you have posters...all over the place. Who just love and generalize how "liberals", "conservatives", "tea drinkers", "gun owners", "pacifists" "appreciators of modern art" or whateverhaveyou are some kind of villainous scum, all of them, because someone who happens to be one of them did something stupid/ridiculous/disgusting.

Goes on around here all the time, assuming the "other side" is some kind of a hive-mind, a collection of "drones" and whatnot. Quite galling. Especially so because it inevitably leads to the "Both sides doooo iiiiiit!" as a defense for someone from one's own side currently being ridiculous.

Incidentally, that's the kind of political speech I want to see called out, anytime, anywhere. I'm not saying stop people from saying stupid shit, but I'm saying, make people know they're full of shit and once they realize you really do know they're full of shit, they'll stop by themselves...

Seanchaidh:

harmonic:
It was clear as crystal, just not to you. "Hit and rape" was just an example of a bad thing to do to women, as is using the Hoover to slurp them up when they're a fetus. There is no room for liberal moral superiority on this issue whatsoever.

This leads me to believe that you think a landlord should have more legal control over an apartment than a woman should have over her own uterus. Abortion is simply the exercise of a right to expel unwanted material from your own body. It's like an eviction.

Swing and a miss. Speak to someone who's actually pro-life about this. By the way, your analogy sucks, because a baby is not a uterus, it's inside one.

harmonic:

Seanchaidh:

harmonic:
It was clear as crystal, just not to you. "Hit and rape" was just an example of a bad thing to do to women, as is using the Hoover to slurp them up when they're a fetus. There is no room for liberal moral superiority on this issue whatsoever.

This leads me to believe that you think a landlord should have more legal control over an apartment than a woman should have over her own uterus. Abortion is simply the exercise of a right to expel unwanted material from your own body. It's like an eviction.

Swing and a miss. Speak to someone who's actually pro-life about this. By the way, your analogy sucks, because a baby is not a uterus, it's inside one.

Um.

It's like an eviction.

You do know what an eviction is, don't you?

GunsmithKitten:

Leadfinger:
"The right to own guns protects defends us from tyranny." Gun supporters always go on about this as if it were a given, but it isn't.

I don't. I've NEVER cited that as my reason for support of firearm ownership. My support is purely for civilian self defense in light of the legal fact that police and military are in no way required to protect us.

Whoa, Gunsmith Kitten! Feeling a bit defensive? When I said civilian gun supporters are always going on about how their guns are protecting us from tyranny, I was making a generalization. I didn't mean that all gun supporters think this way, and I certainly didn't mean that you think so. I was merely pointing out that there is this political meme out there.

BTW, I'm curious why you think the police and the military aren't required to protect us. Isn't that their raison d'etre? Also, I'm not convinced that we really need guns to feel safe, or that owning guns actually makes us safer. Most people who live in the other first world countries of the world don't feel they need guns. Each citizen arming himself in fear of his neighbor seems to me to be a state of anarchy. I think it would be better if Americans could work together to improve safety collectively by, for example, demanding better policing.

Seanchaidh:

Um.

It's like an eviction.

You do know what an eviction is, don't you?

Um, no. Please help, I don't know what an eviction is.

Also, it's rather crass to refer to a baby as "material." It's fine that it's legal, but don't hide what it is. You're putting a vacuum inside a uterus and sucking the guts out of a human. Just be honest with yourself, stop using flowery language and a callous world view to hide the raw face of everything that you believe.

Father Time:

The Gentleman:

Father Time:

You think giving people less access to guns will lead to the same amount of golds?

Yes. In case you missed it, you spend a lot of money on your sports teams to get your golds. I think you'll be fine.

You need to practice and if you do not have access to guns you can't practice as well.

Are we really fighting over this?

I mean, seriously, it's not like you won't have multi-million dollar facilities to practice in and US$10,000 rifles to shoot with. Just keep them there and secured. Hell, the runner up for your Olympic golds is China, and they aren't exactly the wild west in terms of gun control.

The Gentleman:

Point is that most guns are used for legal purposes, so being pro-life doesn't mean being anti-gun.

30,000+ firearm-related deaths per year really isn't helping your case.

I said most, not all.

And, like many things, its the minority of incidents that require some measures to be made. Not everyone drives recklessly, but there are traffic laws in place for everyone's safety.

The Gentleman:

Nobody is pro people getting shot, it's just debatable how much it'll help.

And no one is pro-lung cancer, it's just debatable how cigarettes cause it (Fun fact: they've technically never been able to prove causal links between smoking and lung cancer in humans because they can't actually do a controlled study where they say "okay, we need you to smoke a pack a day to prove causation;" something about basic human rights, hence why you'll almost always see the work "linked" instead of "causes"). The statistics on gun violence in the US compared to other countries is fairly damning.

Correlation is not causation. Crime has been constantly going down in the U.S. since the mid 90s and there are tons of other factors that might effect the crime rate.

And yet it is still far higher than the rest of the most-industrialized world, with a far higher murder rate. Even within the US, where guns are prevalent and less regulated, it is more violent and deadly.

8. More guns tend to mean more homicide.:
The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there's substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you're looking at different countries or different states.

The Gentleman:

And when you have people like this being the spokesmen for your side, it's probably time to put the guns away for good.

Guilt by Association.

And yet this is what you posted earlier:

Father Time:

Leadfinger:
"The right to own guns protects defends us from tyranny." Gun supporters always go on about this as if it were a given, but it isn't.

It's not a guarantee, but it'd definitely make it harder on the tyrants.

When the core of your argument is the same as a ranting lunatic, you may want to reconsider your argument.

The Gentleman:

Anyways, that doesn't really negate the bulk my "pro-life" point. They say they're pro-life, but they seem to have no problem with death penalty (and, in extreme cases, murder), war, and other causes of death and poverty.

Yeah you can't call yourself pro life if you're for the death penalty.

This is actually my real problem with the pro-life crowd, as they generally seem to have no problem with any other form of suffering or death, but are totally against what is probably the most humane ending of "life" (if you were to consider it life, which I don't), by ending it before it could ever feel pain and knowledge. Then they tend to support things like the death penalty, which kind of runs counter to the "every life is precious" line they like to give.

harmonic:
Um, no. Please help, I don't know what an eviction is.

An eviction is where a landlord kicks a tenant out of their building and terminates the landlord-tenant relationship unilaterally. Almost all jurisdictions allow it, but have heavy restrictions and defined procedures in order to protect the often-weaker position of the tenant (example: some jurisdictions in the northeast US actually ban evictions generally during the winter months due to the harsh freezing weather).

Leadfinger:

Father Time:

Leadfinger:
"The right to own guns protects defends us from tyranny." Gun supporters always go on about this as if it were a given, but it isn't.

It's not a guarantee, but it'd definitely make it harder on the tyrants.

See what I mean! This proves my point.

Father Time, I challenge you to find two examples, aside from the American Revolution, where civilian ownership of firearms was decisive in overthrowing a tyranny.
captcha-cop an attitude

Why? It makes sense that if there's a civilian uprising it makes sense that it'll have a higher chance of success if the citizens have guns.

The Gentleman:

harmonic:
Um, no. Please help, I don't know what an eviction is.

An eviction is where a landlord kicks a tenant out of their building and terminates the landlord-tenant relationship unilaterally. Almost all jurisdictions allow it, but have heavy restrictions and defined procedures in order to protect the often-weaker position of the tenant (example: some jurisdictions in the northeast US actually ban evictions generally during the winter months due to the harsh freezing weather).

It seems my sarcasm didn't come through earlier. But thanks.

Father Time:

Why? It makes sense that if there's a civilian uprising it makes sense that it'll have a higher chance of success if the citizens have guns.

Not really. Because many of these armed citizens might just as well be collaborators and use those weapons "against freedom".

Because don't forget: one man's liberator is an other man's oppressor (and vice versa).

Seanchaidh:

Realitycrash:

Seanchaidh:

It's a riposte to the far older, far more widespread idea that "atheists don't have a moral compass" or "are immoral" because they lack the redemptive influence of Biblical teaching or fear of God. I'm not sure of the motivation behind imputing a less tenable point than that to such a sarcastic gibe.

Both are childish, both need to stop.

This only seems true when one imputes more meaning to the expression than is truly there. You have to straw-man both the Thor/ice giants meme and the other one you posted in order to think they're just so awful (or "childish") that they "need to stop".

You can fix that error. Will you?

The topic asked for memes that I wish would die. This is my answer. I find both to be childish and narrow-minded, describing the other side ideas that are either untrue or extremely simplified.
I don't care how people use them, I just care that I dislike them. I want them to stop? The topic asks which I want to stop, and these I want to stop. I don't even need a greater justification than I have already given.

In fact, I want the MLP-Memes to stop too. Why? Because they annoy me.

harmonic:
It seems my sarcasm didn't come through earlier. But thanks.

(to everyone generally) I know there are some people out there who are opposed to Poe's Law Pink (which is, ironically, actually magenta), but if you're going to be sarcastic in this subforum, please use the color to identify your meaning. Remember, no matter how insane of an idea it is, there is probably someone in the world who seriously believes it fully.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked