Yes, you are.
Is anyone that isn't crazy wackos from Bumbleruck TN, "Enthusiastically marginalizing" the victims?
Yes, you are.
You sir, are a hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.
Explain how I am Enthusiastically doing anything.
With math? Math is Enthusiastically? You jerk it and party to division and percents in your private time?
You’re going to pull a muscle with all this reaching.
There’s a difference in extremes (no guns) and EXTREMES (let’s blow up every gun manufacturer and kill their families) and you know what I’m saying.
I’ve heard some Nazi’s loaded them jews on the trains because they figured their reward would be a bullet in the back of the head if they refused, but that doesn’t fit your narrative so we’ll ignore that angle.
I sincerely don’t see how you can call me a little Andrew. You keep trying to correlate the anti gun movement with shit like anti lgbt and anti abortion and prohibition, but there’s a major factor missing from all those movements that make them poor analogies. People are anti gun because other people use them to hurt people. No one can walk into a room and kill half its occupants with their gayness. Neither can someone throw a recently ejected fetus into a crowd and seriously injure anyone. No one can pop open a bottle of jager and spray it at someone and end their life. Jager can certainly be involved in someone hurting someone else (sometimes in conjuction with a gun!) but it’s not the tool being used directly to do so.
Guns are. That’s why people want to limit the kinds and amounts that others are allowed to have. It’s no different than nuclear weapons. Even if only one person out of the entire nation would misuse their nuke, that’s reason enough to outlaw it for everyone. Half our legislation is put in place to protect people from themselves or others.
To move it into subjects you like to beat like a dead horse, how many people would truly be offended if fag became part of my daily lexicon again? Based on the percentage of gay population, not many. But because I’m not a total D bag that’s more interested in my freedom of speech than I am in trying to be part of an inclusive society, I’ve forfeited my right to use words that hurt others. I can (and once did!) make arguments all day long as how I shoukdnt have to do this or that, and I may even be partially right. But at the end of the day facts are facts. Enough people are misusing guns that we hear about it daily. To know that, and still think, “well, that’s too bad for them, I’m not giving up my guns!” doesn’t put you in a place if very high esteem.
Why shouldn't a victim of a crime be listened to? Are all 'damages' from crime quantifiable on a numerical chart?
Or do we just pretend to be objective with the law when it serves us?
Last edited by YellerDog; 24 Feb 2018 at 04:26 PM.
This is tantamount to saying that scientists should be locked out of shaping scientific policy because they're just too close and too familiar to the subject, that people that have absolutely no clue or experience with that shit should be making those decisions because the ones actually educated on them are just a very small minority.
Also, I think you're suuuuper underestimating the percentage of people that have had experience with rape or are a degree or two removed from someone who has.
I kind of get what you may have been going for, that people that suffered trauma are likely to be wound up on overcompensating solutions that try to eliminate the problem rather than more pragmatic, realistic ones that scale the problem down, that realistically these incidents will never just flip from 'on' to 'off' with one big policy change and you've got to contain 'acceptable losses' downward before you can get to 'no losses'. But whew, you sure picked the most dismissive, surface level shithead way to say it. Victims shouldn't be the only drivers of reform, but they should certainly have a prominent place at the table.
If a vat of acid exploded on me at work, should I be the only one not invited to the meeting on safety policy reform because my wiener injury precludes objectivity?
YEAH YOU! (DO DO DO DO DO DO) DOING THAT THING YOU DOOOOO
Not really. Because scientist do science on these things. They have data.
I don't think any of these children did science. They've been through a traumatic experience. They've been effected very emotionally and deeply. Some of them are going to have ptsd.
Having a strong emotional and traumatic experience does not make you an expert.
Its only "most dismissive, surface level shithead way to say it" because you disagree with it. If this was something you did agree with, like conservatives should get over trans people in bathrooms or the right should get over welfare abuse, you'd just nod your head.
This isn't the first time I've broken an issue down into raw %. No one has anything to say when they agree with the point before reading it.
Last edited by Fe 26; 24 Feb 2018 at 06:38 PM.
Bookmarks