Ratam Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 2 hours ago, downzy said: Right, because America never invades involves itself in the affairs of other countries... Funny, few hours ago i posted almost same reply, and after deleted it. Glad me you think it 👍i deleted cause i isn't sure this would sound aggressive, and i self censured. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 4 hours ago, Len Cnut said: everybody was gonna fuck everybody else and the next generation were gonna be indo-afro-oriental-caucasio-hispanio fuckin' hybrids. Sounds like Snakepit Nirvana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgy Zhukov Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/05/jordan-anchondo-andre-anchondo-el-paso-shooting-infant/ This is really sad. Parents died saving their baby. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basic_GnR_Fan Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 17 hours ago, downzy said: Every other developed nation has access to these platforms. And yet, no mass shootings comparable to what we see in the U.S. So no, the problem isn't freedom of speech and online social platforms per se. Again, the problem is, for the most part, the easy access to guns. Let's look at it in terms of the path of least resistance. Sure, mental health care is an issue. But is the United States actually going to devote the attention and resources to address the matter in any real way? No. It's far too big and complex of an issue, particularly with the fact that 40-50 percent of the country wants government to shrink and do less. Every other developed nation has taken the path of least resistance on this matter: make it harder and raise the threshold for gun usage and ownership. It doesn't solve all problems. But it has proven to be the reason why gun-related deaths are statistically far less of an issue in every other developed nation. Gun-related violence in the U.S. is a matter of gun-related policy. Full stop. I don't disagree that social isolation and online platforms further radicalized individuals, but the license and ability to inflict harm in a given society is linked to that person's ability to obtain guns. Why not pick the low hanging fruit first with respect to gun violence and deal with gun-policy? Then proceed to the harder stuff like mental health and online-radicalization on various online social platforms (looking at you 8chan). I actually agree that making guns very hard to get in the US would really cut down on these school/suburban shooter types. However, the gang related handgun related crime would still be a big issue. That's not as easily solvable. My overall point is that this country seems to be in the midst of the historical process of balkanization. Taking guns away is a band-aid and that balkanization process is going to be inevitable at this point. That might be a blackpilling thought, but that's where I think it's at and is going. Specific to social media I was simply saying the founders and previous lawmakers couldn't really see that coming, along with also not being able to see machine guns coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basic_GnR_Fan Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 3 hours ago, moreblack said: He says it was in response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas? Wasn't Texas part of Mexico? they were there all along. Texas has always had a mestizo population (the one's who've been there for awhile actually tend to vote Republican at a relatively high rate too). However, the newer mestizo population has just exploded in the past several decades and tends to be more left wing. White children are only like 25% of the school age population there now, and I believe they were around 60-65% in 1960. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said: Sounds like Snakepit Nirvana. Closest we have to that is Slash jamming with foo fighters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graeme Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 4 hours ago, lukepowell1988 said: It ain't called El Paso for nothing Tejas es México . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 8 hours ago, moreblack said: He says it was in response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas? Wasn't Texas part of Mexico? they were there all along. Mexico ceded control of Texas to the United States in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basic_GnR_Fan Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 13 hours ago, Len Cnut said: Y'know, there's one thing they never explain in their manifestos and thats how offing a fuckload of people helps. We're fuckin' up the envoirnment, corporations are running wild etc etc, it occurs to me that these things, fundamentally, are to do with the preservation of the human race. We want the envoirnment looked after, why, cuz if it fucks up the world gets fucked and a lot of people die. Corporations in power is like a rich get richer, poor get poorer thing, its about NOT wanting to see people get fucked up...so how in all this is the remedy percieved to be shooting a load of people, isn't that just expediating the process? Its all just posturing bullshit, they're just a bunch of pussies that can't handle the realities of life so they just decide to take it out on easy victims while they masquerade as these people with a cause. If you're fuckin' burned by the injustices of life go join the fuckin' peace corps or volunteer at a soup kitchen or something. 'OMG, there's hispanics everywhere!', who gives a flying shit...'this is the last generation of white babies', y'know what, I wouldn't give a flying fuck if, tommorow, someone told me that every last racial variation was coming to an end and everybody was gonna fuck everybody else and the next generation were gonna be indo-afro-oriental-caucasio-hispanio fuckin' hybrids. Wouldn't bother me a lick. These spergs who go on shooting sprees never actually target the elite, they just go after common folk. Wonder what the reaction would be if they did. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 (edited) https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/aug/05/viral-tweet-about-mass-shootings-country-it-needs-/ That viral tweet about mass shootings by country? It needs additional context A statistic about mass shootings in the United States compared to 23 other countries exploded on social media after attacks in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. New York City Democratic activist Keith Edwards saw his Aug. 3 tweet shared nearly 390,000 times and liked by over 800,000 and reposted on Instagram and Facebook. Using emoji symbols for each country’s flag, Edwards wrote that so far in 2019, the United States has had 249 mass shootings, while Mexico had three, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Brazil and Canada had one, and many other countries had none. Critics on Twitter shot back that places such as Brazil and Mexico had much higher murder rates than the United States. But murder rates and mass shootings are different claims. We wanted to see what more we could learn about Edwards’ comparison. Relied on a broad definition of mass shootings Edward based his tweet on information from the Gun Violence Archive, an independent research group that tallies shooting deaths and injuries in the United States. At the time of Edwards’ tweet, the Gun Violence Archive counted 250 U.S. mass shootings for 2019. (As of this writing, it now stands at 255.) The Gun Violence Archive defines a mass shooting as an incident where four or more people are shot, not including the shooter. Because of that definition, the archive’s tally includes 129 shootings in which no one died. "We do not have a generally accepted definition of mass shooting in the United States, which leads the Gun Violence Archive’s numbers to be inflated because it is based solely on a body count and not context," said Jaclyn Schildkraut of the State University of New York in Oswego. "There are qualitative differences in a person who kills their family versus what took place in El Paso and Dayton this weekend." Other researchers agree. "Citing those numbers in the context of events like El Paso might lead people to think that the Gun Violence Archive counts reflect the type of mass public shooting with victims selected apparently at random," said Rosanna Smart, an analyst at RAND, a nonprofit consulting research group. "All gun violence is tragic, but different types of gun violence may be more or less responsive to different types of policies and interventions," she said. Congress defines "mass killings," as three or more people killed. The FBI and the Congressional Research Service use a standard of four or more deaths. By that definition, the archive data show 20 mass shootings this year. International comparison hangs on thin data The problem with setting the Gun Violence Archive number against the count of mass shootings in other countries is that researchers don’t know how other nations define these incidents, or what data lie behind the tweet. "What we might call a mass shooting another country may flag as terrorism or genocide, so standard keyword searches might miss that," Schildkraut said. University of Alabama researcher Adam Lankford wrote recently that the United States has six times as many mass shootings as the global average based on its population. He reached that finding by culling out cases of lone shooters worldwide. Still, the tweet’s precision for 2019 stumps Lankford, because the hard data are missing. "I do not know whether or not it's accurate about the lack of mass shootings writ large in those other countries this year," Lankford said. Lankford echoed the point that it would be "very important" to know the definition behind the numbers. International comparisons of mass shootings are subject to debate, largely based on what sort of incidents are counted. At the end of the day, Lankford said the data support a more cautious conclusion than Edwards tweeted. "Some countries almost never experience public mass shootings that result in four or more victims being killed, while in the United States, we experience them regularly," he said. Our conclusion Edwards said the United States had had 249 mass shootings while Mexico had the next closest number with three and other nations had fewer. There are several problems assessing the accuracy of this claim. The tally Edwards cited includes incidents in which no one died, which stands in sharp contrast to the many deaths in El Paso and Dayton. It includes many situations, such as gang conflict and family killings that have no similarity to a lone gunman opening fire. And there’s no global definition of what constitutes a mass shooting. Broadly, the data support the idea that the type of killings in El Paso and Dayton occur more frequently in the United States. But the precision in the tweet goes beyond what the numbers can say. Basically, the Tweet was BS. For anyone with any sense of what is happening in countries like Honduras, Venezuela, Brazil, etc the numbers were obviously twisted and wrong. Mass shootings in the U.S. are bad enough without some Twitter troll having to make up and twist statistics. Edited August 6, 2019 by Kasanova King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 Mass Shootings By Country 2019 What is a mass shooting? Or perhaps a better question, what defines a mass shooting? The United States Congress defines mass shootings as incidents where there are at least three people, or more, who are shot and killed by an attacker. Mass shootings do not always happen at random, for sometimes, the perpetrators of the mass shooting is a family member, a friend, or a peer of those who are murdered as a result of the act. Other countries have different definitions of a mass shooting. School shootings are a common type of mass shootings, as saddening as it is, especially in the United States. Though there is not actual global definition of a mass shooting, the general consensus is that a mass shooting results from armed weapons taking the lives of many people at one time. What are the countries with the most mass shootings? While this data is difficult to research, here is a list of the top 20 countries with the highest estimated firearm-related death rate. This does not accurately portray the countries with the most mass shootings, but it does give a better idea of gun violence in the world. 1. Honduras (60.00 deaths per 100,000 people) 2. Venezuela (49.22 deaths per 100,000 people) 3. El Salvador (45.6 deaths per 100,000 people) 4. Swaziland (37.16 deaths per 100,000 people) 5. Guatemala (34.10 deaths per 100,000 people) 6. Jamaica (30.72 deaths per 100,000 people) 7. Brazil (21.9 deaths per 100,000 people) 8. Colombia (18.65 deaths per 100,000 people) 9. Panama (15.11 deaths per 100,000 people) 10.United States (12.21 deaths per 100,000 people) 11. Uruguay (11.52 deaths per 100,000 people) 12. Montenegro (8.91 deaths per 100,000 people) 13. Philippines (8.90 deaths per 100,000 people) 14. South Africa (8.3 deaths per 100,000 people) 15. Paraguay (7.76 deaths per 100,000 people) 16. Mexico (7.64 deaths per 100,000 people) 17. Argentina (6.93 deaths per 100,000 people) 18. Barbados (6.6 deaths per 100,000 people) 19. Costa Rica (6.3 deaths per 100,000 people) 20. Peru (5.53 deaths per 100,000 people) In terms of specific mass shootings, according to the Gun Violence Archive, the United States has had over 255 mass shootings in 2019 as of August 2019. There were 340 mass shootings in 2018 in the United States, which is a 26% increase from 2014, which had 269 mass shootings. Contrary to popular belief, comparing countries by mass shooting is actually more difficult that one would think. Other countries have other definitions of what qualifies as a mass shooting, and they have different organizations and entities keeping track of the number of mass shootings each year, so this makes it difficult to compare mass shooting rates between different countries. However, there have still been some researchers that try to compile this information. There is a common misconception that the United States is one of the top few countries, if not the top country, that have the highest mass shooting rates. In 2015, the United States was actually number sixty-six on the list of countries in terms of mass shooting rates according to a study done by the Crime Prevention Research Center. In this study, looking at the United States alongside all the countries in Europe alone, the United States has the 12th highest mass shooting rate. A few of the European countries with a higher mass shooting rate than the United States include Russia, Norway, France, Switzerland and Finland. More recent studies about mass shootings by country are still being conducted. In recent years, the Crime Prevention Research Center looked at the death rates that resulted from mass shootings between the years 2009 and 2015. Here are the average death rates, in millions, per country, between 2009 and 2015. The countries are already listed in order of the highest death rates to the lowest median death rates. Norway 1.888 Serbia 0.381 France 0.347 Macedonia 0.337 Albania 0.206 Slovakia 0.185 Switzerland 0.142 Finland 0.132 Belgium 0.128 The Czech Republic 0.123 The United States of America 0.089 Austria 0.068 The Netherlands 0.051 Canada 0.032 England 0.027 Germany 0.023 Russia 0.012 Italy 0.009 Now that we've looked at the average mass shooting death rates, let's compare those to the frequency at which these mass shootings occur. The countries on this list are also on the list of mass shooting death rates, but the order is noticeably different. The top eighteen European or American countries in terms of mass shooting frequency include... Macedonia Albania Serbia Switzerland Norway Slovakia Finland Belgium Austria The Czech Republic France The United States Canada The Netherlands Italy England Russia Germany Now for the list of European and American countries paired with their mass shooting frequencies. Macedonia 0.471 Albania 0.360 Serbia 0.281 Switzerland 0.249 Norway 0.197 Slovakia 0.185 Finland 0.184 Belgium 0.179 Austria 0.119 The Czech Republic 0.096 France 0.092 The United States 0.078 Canada 0.056 The Netherlands 0.059 Italy 0.017 England 0.015 Russia 0.014 Germany 0.013 Mass Shootings By Country by Population: Flag Name Death Rate per 1 mil Population 2019 Norway 1.888 5,378,857 Serbia 0.381 8,772,235 France 0.347 65,129,728 Macedonia 0.337 2,083,459 Albania 0.206 2,880,917 Slovakia 0.185 5,457,013 Switzerland 0.142 8,591,365 Finland 0.132 5,532,156 Belgium 0.128 11,539,328 Czech Republic 0.123 10,689,209 United States 0.089 329,064,917 Austria 0.068 8,955,102 Netherlands 0.051 17,097,130 Canada 0.032 37,411,047 Germany 0.023 83,517,045 Russia 0.012 145,872,256 Italy 0.009 60,550,075 http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/mass-shootings-by-country/ http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/mass-shootings-by-country/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spunko12345 Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 (edited) 17 hours ago, Download said: It was actually a post from Neil Degrasse Tyson. I thought he was a darling on the liberal left? To some of you, he holds fringe political beliefs all of a sudden how does that work? 😂😂😂 liberals are my favorite. Some of you are precious. How does that work? It works by not necessarily blindly agreeing with everything anybody says. Is that really that difficult a concept to grasp? This idea that someone is liberal/right wing so therefore I have to agree/disagree with everything they do or say for ever is idiotic. Anyone who does that whether they are on the right or left of the political spectrum is as thick as pig shit and clearly incapable of thinking for themselves. Edited August 6, 2019 by spunko12345 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 12 hours ago, downzy said: Yeah, you’re confusing tolerance as an ideal that should be applied to all points of view. Efforts should be made by all to be tolerant of everyone’s point of view, save for those opinions that are inherently intolerant. “Be tolerant of my intolerance” just won’t fly around here. No, I said: "ridiculing, claiming the moral high ground, putting people down etc" which happen even in the absence of an intolerant opinion. I agree that intolerance can not be accepted, that is not up to debate. It is a criminal offense in many countries including my own. One thing will lead to another. If everyone would start to be a little less protective and territorial about their opinions (which will never happen), then maybe, just maybe, we can revert a couple of things that are so wrong with today's society. The amount of hate spread on social media is massive, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pugachev Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 (edited) 21 hours ago, DieselDaisy said: Bit hypocritical for someone British given the state of knife crime here, 43,500 offences in the past year, last year in London 132 homicides. I don't think so. London's homicide rate is 1.6 per 100,000, UK as a whole is 1.2. US is at 6.2 and D.C. is at a whopping 18.5. Gun control is working very well for them. They do need to get a grip on knife crimes, but, they are still a fraction of what we get here. I can only imagine the death toll in London if they had as easy access to firearms as Americans do. Edited August 6, 2019 by pugachev Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lame ass security Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 2 hours ago, Kasanova King said: Mass Shootings By Country 2019 What is a mass shooting? Or perhaps a better question, what defines a mass shooting? The United States Congress defines mass shootings as incidents where there are at least three people, or more, who are shot and killed by an attacker. Mass shootings do not always happen at random, for sometimes, the perpetrators of the mass shooting is a family member, a friend, or a peer of those who are murdered as a result of the act. Other countries have different definitions of a mass shooting. School shootings are a common type of mass shootings, as saddening as it is, especially in the United States. Though there is not actual global definition of a mass shooting, the general consensus is that a mass shooting results from armed weapons taking the lives of many people at one time. What are the countries with the most mass shootings? While this data is difficult to research, here is a list of the top 20 countries with the highest estimated firearm-related death rate. This does not accurately portray the countries with the most mass shootings, but it does give a better idea of gun violence in the world. 1. Honduras (60.00 deaths per 100,000 people) 2. Venezuela (49.22 deaths per 100,000 people) 3. El Salvador (45.6 deaths per 100,000 people) 4. Swaziland (37.16 deaths per 100,000 people) 5. Guatemala (34.10 deaths per 100,000 people) 6. Jamaica (30.72 deaths per 100,000 people) 7. Brazil (21.9 deaths per 100,000 people) 8. Colombia (18.65 deaths per 100,000 people) 9. Panama (15.11 deaths per 100,000 people) 10.United States (12.21 deaths per 100,000 people) 11. Uruguay (11.52 deaths per 100,000 people) 12. Montenegro (8.91 deaths per 100,000 people) 13. Philippines (8.90 deaths per 100,000 people) 14. South Africa (8.3 deaths per 100,000 people) 15. Paraguay (7.76 deaths per 100,000 people) 16. Mexico (7.64 deaths per 100,000 people) 17. Argentina (6.93 deaths per 100,000 people) 18. Barbados (6.6 deaths per 100,000 people) 19. Costa Rica (6.3 deaths per 100,000 people) 20. Peru (5.53 deaths per 100,000 people) In terms of specific mass shootings, according to the Gun Violence Archive, the United States has had over 255 mass shootings in 2019 as of August 2019. There were 340 mass shootings in 2018 in the United States, which is a 26% increase from 2014, which had 269 mass shootings. Contrary to popular belief, comparing countries by mass shooting is actually more difficult that one would think. Other countries have other definitions of what qualifies as a mass shooting, and they have different organizations and entities keeping track of the number of mass shootings each year, so this makes it difficult to compare mass shooting rates between different countries. However, there have still been some researchers that try to compile this information. There is a common misconception that the United States is one of the top few countries, if not the top country, that have the highest mass shooting rates. In 2015, the United States was actually number sixty-six on the list of countries in terms of mass shooting rates according to a study done by the Crime Prevention Research Center. In this study, looking at the United States alongside all the countries in Europe alone, the United States has the 12th highest mass shooting rate. A few of the European countries with a higher mass shooting rate than the United States include Russia, Norway, France, Switzerland and Finland. More recent studies about mass shootings by country are still being conducted. In recent years, the Crime Prevention Research Center looked at the death rates that resulted from mass shootings between the years 2009 and 2015. Here are the average death rates, in millions, per country, between 2009 and 2015. The countries are already listed in order of the highest death rates to the lowest median death rates. Norway 1.888 Serbia 0.381 France 0.347 Macedonia 0.337 Albania 0.206 Slovakia 0.185 Switzerland 0.142 Finland 0.132 Belgium 0.128 The Czech Republic 0.123 The United States of America 0.089 Austria 0.068 The Netherlands 0.051 Canada 0.032 England 0.027 Germany 0.023 Russia 0.012 Italy 0.009 Now that we've looked at the average mass shooting death rates, let's compare those to the frequency at which these mass shootings occur. The countries on this list are also on the list of mass shooting death rates, but the order is noticeably different. The top eighteen European or American countries in terms of mass shooting frequency include... Macedonia Albania Serbia Switzerland Norway Slovakia Finland Belgium Austria The Czech Republic France The United States Canada The Netherlands Italy England Russia Germany Now for the list of European and American countries paired with their mass shooting frequencies. Macedonia 0.471 Albania 0.360 Serbia 0.281 Switzerland 0.249 Norway 0.197 Slovakia 0.185 Finland 0.184 Belgium 0.179 Austria 0.119 The Czech Republic 0.096 France 0.092 The United States 0.078 Canada 0.056 The Netherlands 0.059 Italy 0.017 England 0.015 Russia 0.014 Germany 0.013 Mass Shootings By Country by Population: Flag Name Death Rate per 1 mil Population 2019 Norway 1.888 5,378,857 Serbia 0.381 8,772,235 France 0.347 65,129,728 Macedonia 0.337 2,083,459 Albania 0.206 2,880,917 Slovakia 0.185 5,457,013 Switzerland 0.142 8,591,365 Finland 0.132 5,532,156 Belgium 0.128 11,539,328 Czech Republic 0.123 10,689,209 United States 0.089 329,064,917 Austria 0.068 8,955,102 Netherlands 0.051 17,097,130 Canada 0.032 37,411,047 Germany 0.023 83,517,045 Russia 0.012 145,872,256 Italy 0.009 60,550,075 http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/mass-shootings-by-country/ http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/mass-shootings-by-country/ Thanks for posting this, very informative facts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 14 minutes ago, pugachev said: I don't think so. London's homicide rate is 1.6 per 100,000, UK as a whole is 1.2. US is at 6.2 and D.C. is at a whopping 18.5. Gun control is working very well for them. They do need to get a grip on knife crimes, but, they are still a fraction of what we get here. I can only imagine the death toll in London if they had as easy access to firearms as Americans do. Yet the worst gun massacre I can recall occurred in little liberal Norway of all places, 77 people, Breivik. The United Kingdom isn't immune either, Hungerford 1987, Monkseaton '89 (near me), Dunblane '96 which led to changes to the law concerning handguns, but then we had Cumbria 2010. You have to be rather whiter than white to have the audacity to criticise another country, and when London knife crime has quadrupled recently under her lefty mayor Sadiq Khan I don't see how anyone British can really hector Americans upon this complicated subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-W.A.R- Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 There have been some super bad takes such as Republicans still blaming video games and lack of prayer in school. But this may be the worst ever oof 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padme Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 Well it seems the guy fom Dayton was into extreme left. He liked Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. But he wanted Joe Biden generation to die https://us.cnn.com/2019/08/05/us/connor-betts-dayton-shooting-profile/index.html Still the real problem I see here is that this crazy guy had easy access to guns. But little or no access at all to a mental hospital and proper psychiatric treatment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 On 05.08.2019 at 12:01 AM, Chewbacca said: Not all of them. If you ban legal guns, these criminals will resort to illegal ones. You'll probably just see a rise on illegal guns related crimes. Most mass murders in the USA is done with legally acquired guns. And if you reduce the amount of legally obtained guns there will be less mass murders, because whereas a gang banger may be able to buy guns on the black market, Joe Rightwinger might not have those connections. Additionally, there is a dynamics between legal guns and black market guns with legal guns being stolen and becoming illegal guns on the black market. If you reduce the amount of legal guns, that will shrink the amount of illegal guns. Don't get me wrong, there will always be guns floating about, both because it is utopian to think there will ever be laws against the selling of guns, but also because there will be guns smuggled into a country in addition to a certain amount of flux of weapons from the military and the police, but if you reduce the amount of guns there will be less killings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 15 hours ago, action said: I have yet to meet the first "truly" tolerant person, ever. All I ever see, is ridiculing, claiming the moral high ground, putting people down etc. It really, really says a lot about humanity as a species. A "truly" tolerant person would be awful. Someone who "tolerates" every opinion no matter how disgusting or destructive. A person who just turns the other cheek when confronted with evil. Someone who doesn't stand up for what is right and decent. Personally I tend to think that tolerance to opinions is wrong. Opinions don't have any human rights. Opinions don't have feelings. Opinions shouldn't have any protection. Opinions are to be pondered, turned upside down, attacked and defended. And tolerance to humans is only about accepting that people are different to you as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Our tolerance to people who choose to be different, who choose a different path, should be limitless as long as o one suffers as a consequence. That is true tolerance. To never let your own subjective preferences result in prejudice against others. But the important here is that as soon as someone starts hurting others, tolerance is out the window. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 14 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: A "truly" tolerant person would be awful. Someone who "tolerates" every opinion no matter how disgusting or destructive. A person who just turns the other cheek when confronted with evil. Someone who doesn't stand up for what is right and decent. Personally I tend to think that tolerance to opinions is wrong. Opinions don't have any human rights. Opinions don't have feelings. Opinions shouldn't have any protection. Opinions are to be pondered, turned upside down, attacked and defended. And tolerance to humans is only about accepting that people are different to you as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Our tolerance to people who choose to be different, who choose a different path, should be limitless as long as o one suffers as a consequence. That is true tolerance. To never let your own subjective preferences result in prejudice against others. But the important here is that as soon as someone starts hurting others, tolerance is out the window. opinions are an expression of the person that we are deep inside. The opinion doesn't have human rights, but the person does. I don't know how you can attack an opinion without attacking the person. It's an academic discussion, since most bigots are attacking the person anyway. I think we can all agree that a person deserves respect. Not only is it common decency, it's the very basis of living together as people. The difference between us and animals, is that we set aside our territorial behaviour and instincts, we go out of our usual way to show respect to people. Because imagine if it was any other way. Then, society would cease to exist and it would be replaced with the law of the jungle. But there are cracks in the surface. It sometimes is a jungle out there. Crime, hate speech, bullying, suicide as a result of this. When decency is thrown away, our filthy nature comes out. We are after all, mammals but we pretend to be better than animals (but I get more friendship from my dog than from most people still). There is an unhealthy amount of "anthropocentrism" in society and science. Such is our collective bigotry that we pretend to be better than animals, but our actions tell a different story. Hate speech and intolerance should be opposed in the fiercest way. I never claimed otherwise, on the contrary I always advocated tolerance. This necessarily means a heavy criticism of intolerance. I don't see how this can be in any way unclear. Tolerance can not exist in the face of intolerance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 Just now, Oldest Goat said: Everyone's entitled to an opinion; nobody's entitled to a good opinion. Respect must be earned. No, it's the other way around. You respect people as a starting point. When they show to be dicks, then you can change your stance. Imagine only respecting people who have proven to "deserve" it. "Hey stranger. I don't respect you. First you have to earn it, you dimwit" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, action said: opinions are an expression of the person that we are deep inside. The opinion doesn't have human rights, but the person does. I don't know how you can attack an opinion without attacking the person. It's an academic discussion, since most bigots are attacking the person anyway. I think we can all agree that a person deserves respect. Not only is it common decency, it's the very basis of living together as people. The difference between us and animals, is that we set aside our territorial behaviour and instincts, we go out of our usual way to show respect to people. Because imagine if it was any other way. Then, society would cease to exist and it would be replaced with the law of the jungle. We all hold thousands of opinions. We must learn to have them challenged, to have them rejected, to have them ridiculed. After all we are not defined by any specific opinion we might hold, but of the totality of our opinions and acts. And we all have opinions that don't stand the light of day. If we shy away from having our opinions challenged we risk that they get stuck, that they fasten, and can't get loose and thrown away later when challenged. And at the same time, anyone rejecting someone else's opinion should keep in mind how that feel for the other. Just don't be an asshole about it, right? Don't go about attacking other people's opinions if they don't want to and you don't have to. Context matters. This, for instance, is a discussion forum, so here people come to discuss their opinions and here we must accept that happening. This is radically different than, say, at a social event at work where you don't go up to people and start attacking their positions on, say, abortion if they haven't asked for it. Context is crucial. And don't make the mistake of thinking that the person you talk to is defined by that very opinion you might dislike. They aren't. We are all complex beings with a multitude of opinions, and we all got it wrong here and there. So yeah, it isn't necessarily always easy to challenge someone's opinion without any feelings getting hurt. But on the other hand, we have to. At least occasionally. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: We all hold thousands of opinions. We must learn to have them challenged, to have them rejected, to have them ridiculed. After all we are not defined by any specific opinion we might hold, but of the totality of our opinions and acts. And we all have opinions that don't stand the light of day. If we shy away from having our opinions challenged we risk that they get stuck, that they fasten, and can't get loose and thrown away later when challenged. And at the same time, anyone rejecting someone else's opinion should keep in mind how that feel for the other. Just don't be an asshole about it, right? Don't go about attacking other people's opinions if they don't want to and you don't have to. Context matters. This, for instance, is a discussion forum, so here people come to discuss their opinions and here we must accept that happening. This is radically different than, say, at a social event at work where you don't go up to people and start attacking their positions on, say, abortion if they haven't asked for it. Context is crucial. And don't make the mistake of thinking that the person you talk to is defined by that very opinion you might dislike. They aren't. We are all complex beings with a multitude of opinions, and we all got it wrong here and there. So yeah, it isn't necessarily always easy to challenge someone's opinion without any feelings getting hurt. But on the other hand, we have to. At least occasionally. well said but I think we have to keep in mind, considering the many documented suicides as a result of online hate speech (often still a child), that even on an online platform we have to be cautious. Cautious is the keyword here. The anonimity of the internet is a curse for both parties. It's hard to judge where and when to stop. Speaking for myself, when my opinion is challenged, ridiculed even, it hasn't affect me on a personal level yet. But not everyone is like that. We are all vulnerable, one more than the other. Frankly, you'd need to be one cold motherfucker to never be personally affected by personal insults. But I guess that's why we have mods. So let me take this opportunity to thank them for a job well done. They are very important. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 1 hour ago, SoulMonster said: Most mass murders in the USA is done with legally acquired guns. And if you reduce the amount of legally obtained guns there will be less mass murders, because whereas a gang banger may be able to buy guns on the black market, Joe Rightwinger might not have those connections. Great point! That's an argument I've made many times on this topic. If you think about the average mass shooter they tend to fit a certain profile. One that is shall we say a little on the socially awkward side? For instance if legal guns weren't freely and easily available where do you think this fucker is going to get his hands on one? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.