The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

The reasons for the recent mass shootings Options
BobShilling
Posted: Monday, August 5, 2019 11:06:37 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,421
Neurons: 7,621
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Who is to be blamed for the recent mass shootings in America?

According to Ohio state representative Candice Keller, writing on Facebook, it's “the breakdown of the traditional American family (thank you, transgender, homosexual marriage, and drag queen advocates); fatherlessness, a subject no one discusses or believes is relevant; the ignoring of violent video games; the relaxing of laws against criminals( open borders); the acceptance of recreational marijuana; failed school policies (hello, parents who defend misbehaving students): disrespect to law enforcement (thank you, Obama), hatred of our veterans (professional athletes who hate our flag and National Anthem), the Dem Congress many members of whom are openly anti-semitic; the culture that totally ignores the importance of God and the church (until they elect a President); state office-holders who have no interest whatsoever in learning about our Constitution, end the Second Amendment; and snowflakes who can’t accept a duly-elected President".

Couldn't have put it better myself. Get rid of all the queers, transgender perverts, immigrants, Obama-lovers, immigrants, veteran-haters, atheists, Democrats,people who want some form of control on guns, people who expect the police to enforce the law peacefully and legally, anybody I consider a snowflake, etc, etc, and there will be no more mass shootings. America will be truly great again.

It's wonderful to be reminded that people who choose to kneel during the national anthem to call attention to the issues of racial inequality and police brutality are haters of veterans and the national anthem, that people who don't wholeheartedly support the state of Israel are anti-semitic, that the second amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.") obviously allows every red-blooded patriotic American to keep any form of people-killer he/she wishes and that queers are jst beyond the pale.

God Bless America and God Bless Candice Keller.
FounDit
Posted: Monday, August 5, 2019 12:00:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,233
Neurons: 60,694
Like I said, with freedom, people have the right to say what they think, both you and them, and we all have to either allow it, or live under tyranny of conformity.
whatson
Posted: Monday, August 5, 2019 5:44:46 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/19/2016
Posts: 366
Neurons: 3,114
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Blessed is the exceptionality of mass-shooters
for theirs is the United States of Heaven.
May the Tariffic Genius lead them skyward.
Romany
Posted: Monday, August 5, 2019 7:52:07 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 16,057
Neurons: 50,893
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Sure, people have rights. Yet America is the only developed country in the world where the right to exterminate each other is counted as God-given ...and staunchly defended as such.
FounDit
Posted: Monday, August 5, 2019 7:58:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,233
Neurons: 60,694
Romany wrote:
Sure, people have rights. Yet America is the only developed country in the world where the right to exterminate each other is counted as God-given ...and staunchly defended as such.


Amen...Applause Applause Applause Thank you, Founders.
Romany
Posted: Monday, August 5, 2019 8:45:22 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 16,057
Neurons: 50,893
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Easy enough to express such crowing and inhuman sentiments in order to pretend there's nothing wrong with toddlers killing each other, or fellow Trumpeteers wiping out other human beings on deranged whims. Would you clap and cheer in the same way if confronted with those whose children, wives, husbands, siblings, parents, friends and neighbours have died in terrifying circumstances or suffered life-long and life-changing injuries? Would you jump up on the stage in front of a gathering of these suffering people and invite them to give you three rousing cheers for such a cheap shot? Do you reckon they'd forget about mourning and jump up gratefully to join you in your celebration of domestic terrorism?

I've a feeling you'd not get out of the room alive, mate, if you tried that one on them.

Or would you look into your grandchildren's eyes and tell them if they or their parents got mown down in a hail of bullets, to remember to thank their founding fathers for the privilege? Would you stand by, watching, and call for a triumphant 'Amen'?

Have you no feelings at all for anything other than your need never to be wrong?
Oscar D. Grouch
Posted: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 6:04:24 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/26/2014
Posts: 760
Neurons: 1,181,908
This past weekend's shootings were the 250th mass shootings of the year so far. Sunday was the 216th day of the year. That makes 1.16 mass homicides per day. That's a bitter daily pill the NRA is having us swallow. Do civilians really need to own automatic rifles that mimic military grade weapons? The NRA is a lethal enabler.
Lotje1000
Posted: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 6:04:58 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,091
Neurons: 596,908
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Mental illness is one of the reasons Trump quotes for the recent massacres.

Quote:
President Donald Trump responded to the El Paso and Dayton mass shootings by insisting Monday that “mental illness pulls the trigger not the gun,” but shortly after taking office he quietly rolled back an Obama-era regulation that would have made it harder for people with mental illness to buy guns.


Quote:
"If the president truly believed that those with mental illness should not have access to weapons of war, he would not have reversed Obama's executive order to remove social security recipients with mental illness from the NICS background system," Po Murray, Chairwoman, Newtown Action Alliance said in a statement. "But the fact is that only 4 percent of violent crimes are committed by those with mental illness. Donald Trump continues to push the NRA rhetoric that scapegoats mental illness in an effort to deflect from the real issue ... the dire lack of common-sense legislation that could end the epidemic of gun violence in our country."


Source.
Romany
Posted: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 10:01:58 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 16,057
Neurons: 50,893
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Lotje -

To be fair - that wasn't the only reason the-man-who-forgot-which-town-had-been-shot-up gave.

He's obviously given it some thought: he also cited video games.
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 11:20:33 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,925
Neurons: 51,153
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Very telling that FD brings up only the issue of free speech and does not add any commentary on the shootings. A straw man fallacy distraction as usual.

Here are four thousand words to help explain the rise of White Nationalist terrorism in the US and around the world.



Reads Toledo. I guess it would be hard to read when your eyes are often/always dilated.






FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 3:38:31 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,233
Neurons: 60,694
Romany wrote:

Easy enough to express such crowing and inhuman sentiments in order to pretend there's nothing wrong with toddlers killing each other, or fellow Trumpeteers wiping out other human beings on deranged whims. Would you clap and cheer in the same way if confronted with those whose children, wives, husbands, siblings, parents, friends and neighbours have died in terrifying circumstances or suffered life-long and life-changing injuries? Would you jump up on the stage in front of a gathering of these suffering people and invite them to give you three rousing cheers for such a cheap shot? Do you reckon they'd forget about mourning and jump up gratefully to join you in your celebration of domestic terrorism?

I've a feeling you'd not get out of the room alive, mate, if you tried that one on them.

Or would you look into your grandchildren's eyes and tell them if they or their parents got mown down in a hail of bullets, to remember to thank their founding fathers for the privilege? Would you stand by, watching, and call for a triumphant 'Amen'?

Have you no feelings at all for anything other than your need never to be wrong?


Ah, once again you hide behind a supposed care and concern for "the children". But as I said before, you don't get to crow about how "concerned" you are for the children and at the same time demand the right to kill them when they are convenient. Well, you can, but you come across looking like a fool, or a hypocrite.

But,yes, I applaud the Founders for giving us the right to defend ourselves with arms. You will notice - well, you probably won't, but clear-eyed folks will notice - that it is a always a good guy/gal with a gun that stops a bad guy/gal with a gun.

Crazies will always be with us - always have been, always will be. But you cannot take away the rights of everyone else in the country because of one, two, or even a dozen mentally disturbed persons.

Hundreds each day die in auto accidents from drunk drivers, and they aren't even mentally disturbed, but there is no call to restrict ownership of autos for everyone in the country.

Hundreds, and even thousands, die each year from prescription drug overdoses, and neither are they mentally disturbed, but there is no call to restrict the rights of everyone else over obtaining prescriptions.

I would suggest using some common sense, but...
BobShilling
Posted: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 5:52:48 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,421
Neurons: 7,621
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:
You will notice [...] it is a always a good guy/gal with a gun that stops a bad guy/gal with a gun
.

Yup. Have you noticed that a helluva lot of bad guys would not be in the situation that they would need to be stopped if they did not have such easy access to guns?

Have you noticed that the gun-related homicide rate for the USA is FAR higher than that in other high-income OECD countries, most of which have very rigorous controls?
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 11:12:27 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,925
Neurons: 51,153
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Unless the Dems are calling to ban all guns, then they are not "taking away rights". They are trying to put rules in place to make the sale harder so mentally ill can't get them, violent people (like men who beat their wives) are prohibited, and the guns have to be registered.

Canada has all those rules and regulations and now the public, especially In Toronto, are demanding the Liberals ban all guns while the Conservatives want to allow even more assault rifles. I am fighting to keep guns for legal owners and put money into border patrol, for mental health, and for youth programs. Legal owners in Canada go through rigorous training and rules to get a licence and are checked against a list of gun crimes committed every single day. They don't mind as it keeps people safe. The criminals are the ones with the guns.

Depends upon who wins the October election. If the Cons win we know what they will do. I expect if the Libs win they will ban assault rifles but leave handguns. I think they have already upped RCMP drugs and gun control, mental health, and border patrol money.

Toronto homicide by gun - 2014 - 13; 2015 - 14; 2016 - 26; 2017 - 23;, 2018 - 30, 2019 YTD 19 but down for this period from 2018.

These are not "crazies". These are gang and drug related in Toronto.

The White Nationalists and Extreme Right who have done all the mass shootings in 2018 in the US, the mosque shooter in Canada, and the New Zealand shooter are not crazies either. They are home grown terrorists.

They have anger and fear problems, have been radicalized, and encouraged with rhetoric.


Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 11:44:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,925
Neurons: 51,153
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Over the past decade, attackers motivated by right-wing political ideologies have committed dozens of shootings, bombings and other acts of violence, far more than any other category of domestic extremist, according to a Washington Post analysis of data on global terrorism. While the data show a decades-long drop-off in violence by left-wing groups, violence by white supremacists and other far-right attackers has been on the rise since Barack Obama’s presidency — and has surged since President Trump took office.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-the-united-states-right-wing-violence-is-on-the-rise/2018/11/25/61f7f24a-deb4-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f7bac2111342

It seems they couldn't handle a half black man as president and Trump has encouraged violence with his rhetoric. The El Paso attack was definitely against immigrants/Mexicans. They may be charging the shooter with a hate crime and giving him a death penalty.
BobShilling
Posted: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 12:53:13 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,421
Neurons: 7,621
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic


Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
“Did George Bush ever condemn President Obama after Sandy Hook. President Obama had 32 mass shootings during his reign. Not many people said Obama is out of Control. Mass shootings were happening before the President even thought about running for Pres.”
@kilmeade

@foxandfriends
12:47 PM · Aug 6, 2019·Twitter for iPhone



According to this table, there were 29 mass shootings in the eight years of Obama's presidency - an average of 3.625 a year. There have been 31 in the 2 years 7 months of Trump's, an average of 12 a year.
Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 3:13:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,091
Neurons: 596,908
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
FounDit wrote:
Ah, once again you hide behind a supposed care and concern for "the children". But as I said before, you don't get to crow about how "concerned" you are for the children and at the same time demand the right to kill them when they are convenient. Well, you can, but you come across looking like a fool, or a hypocrite.
[...]
I would suggest using some common sense, but...


I will never stop being amazed at how FounDit is against government regulation on anything that might impact him - yet seems perfectly fine with the government imposing control on women's bodies.

Wait, no, let me use common sense here... Yeah, thinking about it now, that's entirely in character for FounDit. Nevermind!


FounDit wrote:
But,yes, I applaud the Founders for giving us the right to defend ourselves with arms. You will notice - well, you probably won't, but clear-eyed folks will notice - that it is a always a good guy/gal with a gun that stops a bad guy/gal with a gun.


But not before the bad guy/gal with a gun has shot up a lot of people first, evidently. If only there was a way of stopping them before they could do that.

FounDit wrote:
Crazies will always be with us - always have been, always will be. But you cannot take away the rights of everyone else in the country because of one, two, or even a dozen mentally disturbed persons.


Doesn't seem that hard, that's what you do with cars already.

FounDit wrote:
Hundreds each day die in auto accidents from drunk drivers, and they aren't even mentally disturbed, but there is no call to restrict ownership of autos for everyone in the country.


Yet there are restrictions to ownership and ability to drive a car.
Additionally:
- There aren't that many mass murders happening with a car, where 1 person deliberately ends the lives of so many.
- Cars aren't designed to be death machines. Guns are. Automatic weapons especially so.


FounDit wrote:
Hundreds, and even thousands, die each year from prescription drug overdoses, and neither are they mentally disturbed, but there is no call to restrict the rights of everyone else over obtaining prescriptions.

The US government spends a fraction of the amount on gun violence that it does on researching drug-related deaths.
Additionally:
- There aren't that many mass murderers happening with drugs where 1 person deliberately ends the lives of so many.
- Prescription medicine, by definition, is regulated. So people's rights are already restricted precisely because of what can go wrong.
- Drugs aren't designed to be death machines. Drugs are. Automatic weapons especially so.

So, I guess, thanks for providing two examples for how government regulation actually helps save lives.
philips daughter
Posted: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 11:52:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 233
Neurons: 43,648
Yes, there are hundreds of car accidents. Each and every driver carries insurance to pay for any damages that are incurred. Who is paying for all the damage assault weapons cause. You want to have guns then pay up.
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 12:21:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,233
Neurons: 60,694
BobShilling wrote:
FounDit wrote:
You will notice [...] it is a always a good guy/gal with a gun that stops a bad guy/gal with a gun
.

Yup. Have you noticed that a helluva lot of bad guys would not be in the situation that they would need to be stopped if they did not have such easy access to guns?
So what's your plan for stopping criminals from obtaining guns? Ban all guns? How do you do that and make it work? And if you take away, or severely restrict the ability to get guns, you make the criminal better armed because they don't obey laws. That turns your society into a herd of unarmed victims.

Have you noticed that the gun-related homicide rate for the USA is FAR higher than that in other high-income OECD countries, most of which have very rigorous controls?


You link begins by saying it "needs to be updated", "relies largely or entirely on a single source", and "possibly contains inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text", so I'm not sure it should be considered relevant for any purpose other than propaganda.

FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 12:38:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,233
Neurons: 60,694
Lotje1000 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Ah, once again you hide behind a supposed care and concern for "the children". But as I said before, you don't get to crow about how "concerned" you are for the children and at the same time demand the right to kill them when they are convenient. Well, you can, but you come across looking like a fool, or a hypocrite.
[...]
I would suggest using some common sense, but...


I will never stop being amazed at how FounDit is against government regulation on anything that might impact him - yet seems perfectly fine with the government imposing control on women's bodies.

Wait, no, let me use common sense here... Yeah, thinking about it now, that's entirely in character for FounDit. Nevermind!

Exactly when did I say I wanted government to impose control on women's bodies? uh...never.

FounDit wrote:
But,yes, I applaud the Founders for giving us the right to defend ourselves with arms. You will notice - well, you probably won't, but clear-eyed folks will notice - that it is a always a good guy/gal with a gun that stops a bad guy/gal with a gun.


But not before the bad guy/gal with a gun has shot up a lot of people first, evidently. If only there was a way of stopping them before they could do that.
You don't say how you would do that. Are you advocating punishment for "thought crimes"?

FounDit wrote:
Crazies will always be with us - always have been, always will be. But you cannot take away the rights of everyone else in the country because of one, two, or even a dozen mentally disturbed persons.


Doesn't seem that hard, that's what you do with cars already.
No it isn't.

FounDit wrote:
Hundreds each day die in auto accidents from drunk drivers, and they aren't even mentally disturbed, but there is no call to restrict ownership of autos for everyone in the country.


Yet there are restrictions to ownership and ability to drive a car.
Not for the whole population simply because someone misuses one. We advocate training for the use of them, just as we do for guns.

Additionally:
- There aren't that many mass murders happening with a car, where 1 person deliberately ends the lives of so many.
Did you miss these events?
84 murdered with a truck in Nice, France; 12 in Berlin, Germany; five in Stockholm; 13 in Barcelona, Spain; eight by truck and knives in London.
- Cars aren't designed to be death machines. Guns are. Automatic weapons especially so.

Exactly. When your life is threatened, or those of your family, you want something designed to produce death for your attacker: knife, gun, club, sword, etc.

FounDit wrote:
Hundreds, and even thousands, die each year from prescription drug overdoses, and neither are they mentally disturbed, but there is no call to restrict the rights of everyone else over obtaining prescriptions.

The US government spends a fraction of the amount on gun violence that it does on researching drug-related deaths.
Additionally:
- There aren't that many mass murderers happening with drugs where 1 person deliberately ends the lives of so many.
- Prescription medicine, by definition, is regulated. So people's rights are already restricted precisely because of what can go wrong.
- Drugs aren't designed to be death machines. Drugs are. Automatic weapons especially so.
Once again you miss the point, deliberately so, I think. The whole of society isn't restricted to obtaining prescriptions simply because someone abuses them. Illogical argument.

So, I guess, thanks for providing two examples for how government regulation actually helps save lives.
Non sequitur.
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 12:43:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,233
Neurons: 60,694
philips daughter wrote:
Yes, there are hundreds of car accidents. Each and every driver carries insurance to pay for any damages that are incurred. Who is paying for all the damage assault weapons cause. You want to have guns then pay up.


A foolish argument. Vehicles are used every day by billions of people, safely for the most part, driving around, beside, and between those of their fellow citizens. But we do not have billions of people shooting firearms at, beside, and between their fellow citizens each day. Another non sequitur.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 12:59:25 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 33,165
Neurons: 208,128
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
FounDit wrote:
Like I said, with freedom, people have the right to say what they think, both you and them, and we all have to either allow it, or live under tyranny of conformity.

One bit of my creed. This is on free speech, not guns - just an 'aside' - I agree with what you say there.
Quote:

That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.


My opinion is that "I think all green people should not be allowed to live" is an opinion.
"Kill all green people", "Hang 'em all" are not opinions, they're rhetoric.
BobShilling
Posted: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 1:13:15 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,421
Neurons: 7,621
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:
Vehicles are used every day by billions of people, safely for the most part, driving around, beside, and between those of their fellow citizens. But we do not have billions of people shooting firearms at, beside, and between their fellow citizens each day. Another non sequitur.
[/color]


We have rather more people in the USA shooting firearms at, beside, and between their fellow citizens with intent to harm than people attempting to kill other people with their vehicles..
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 1:43:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,925
Neurons: 51,153
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote: But as I said before, you don't get to crow about how "concerned" you are for the children and at the same time demand the right to kill them when they are convenient.

Why would you kill convenient children?

Children - whether convenient or inconvenient are not killed. They may be put into cages and die, though. Or be beaten as unwanted, live in squalor, or be given the death penalty after they grow past a certain age. Or because of being rejected by parents who were made to have them may become a shooter and kill many others, including kindergarten children. There is hypocrisy in anti uterus arguments people make.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 2:03:59 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,925
Neurons: 51,153
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Like I said, with freedom, people have the right to say what they think, both you and them, and we all have to either allow it, or live under tyranny of conformity.

One bit of my creed. This is on free speech, not guns - just an 'aside' - I agree with what you say there.
Quote:

That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.


My opinion is that "I think all green people should not be allowed to live" is an opinion.
"Kill all green people", "Hang 'em all" are not opinions, they're rhetoric.


Agree with FounDit's statement too with one caveat to remember:

One has to suffer the consequences of one's speech and actions even in a free country. Consider what violence Trump's tweets are fostering. Should he be held accountable for SOME of the bloodshed? He may not have created violence, but he surely is creating the environment for it and the encouragement for it to grow.

This quote is copied from my post on another thread but it fits here too re freedom.

I agree with this statement too.

"The most certain test by which we can judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities." John Dahlberg-Acton 1834-1902 English historian.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 3:26:59 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,925
Neurons: 51,153
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
This is what Toronto Star editor and cartoonists think is helping to cause the spate of mass shootings since 2016.

Editorial for today "Trump is the Inciter-in-chief". https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2019/08/06/trump-denounces-racism-but-hes-the-inciter-in-chief.html







The cognitive dissonance those statements elicit is overwhelming. There are Trump’s carefully scripted words and then there are his actions — a barrage of racist tweets, speeches and presidential orders that have done more than anything else to foster the climate in which the El Paso massacre seemed tragically inevitable.

The United States, along with other countries, including Canada, faces a growing problem with individuals and groups motivated by white nationalism and related ideologies. Trump did not create it, but more than any other person he has created the conditions in which it can flourish.

He is, in fact, the inciter-in-chief. He has played recklessly with fire, and then deplores the damage when the flames roar out of control. The hypocrisy is stunning.


...Trumps words and actions are not just a domestic problem for the United States. They have become an inspiration for a global network of white national terrorists, a challenge the world has been slow to acknowledge..“There’s some reluctance among agents to bring forth an investigation that targets what the president perceives as his base,” one former F.B.I. supervisor who oversaw terrorism cases told the Washington Post. “It’s a no-win situation for the F.B.I. agent or supervisor.”

Canada, too, has been slow to react to the threat of white extremist terrorism....The threat of such ideology is now clearer than ever. It will be all the more difficult to fight it as long as the U.S. president, of all people, continues to pour gasoline on the fire.
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 5:55:09 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,233
Neurons: 60,694
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Like I said, with freedom, people have the right to say what they think, both you and them, and we all have to either allow it, or live under tyranny of conformity.

One bit of my creed. This is on free speech, not guns - just an 'aside' - I agree with what you say there.
Quote:

That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.


My opinion is that "I think all green people should not be allowed to live" is an opinion.
"Kill all green people", "Hang 'em all" are not opinions, they're rhetoric.


Not to be too picky, but those look like imperatives, or commands, rather than simple rhetoric. By the way, isn't the definition of rhetoric just oratory, or speech? I think so. I'll look it up.
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 5:57:03 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,233
Neurons: 60,694
BobShilling wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Vehicles are used every day by billions of people, safely for the most part, driving around, beside, and between those of their fellow citizens. But we do not have billions of people shooting firearms at, beside, and between their fellow citizens each day. Another non sequitur.
[/color]


We have rather more people in the USA shooting firearms at, beside, and between their fellow citizens with intent to harm than people attempting to kill other people with their vehicles..


And yet thousands more die from vehicles every year. Huh! So I guess vehicles are far more dangerous.
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 6:03:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,233
Neurons: 60,694
Hope123 wrote:
FounDit wrote: But as I said before, you don't get to crow about how "concerned" you are for the children and at the same time demand the right to kill them when they are convenient.

Why would you kill convenient children?
Opps - INconvenient. Fingers couldn't keep up with thoughts.

Children - whether convenient or inconvenient are not killed. Really? What are they? Cows? dogs? Birds?

They may be put into cages and die, though. Or be beaten as unwanted, live in squalor, or be given the death penalty after they grow past a certain age. Or because of being rejected by parents who were made to have them may become a shooter and kill many others, including kindergarten children. There is hypocrisy in anti uterus arguments people make.


No hypocrisy at all. Either the child is allowed to develop, be born and permitted to live, or it isn't. Simple binary decision. And it isn't me who demands sympathy for children, and at the same time, demands the right to kill them before, or at, birth.
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 6:09:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,233
Neurons: 60,694
Oh My Gosh! The Toronto Star editor and cartoonists don't like our President! How will I make it through the night now that I know that? Their opinion means s-o-o-o-o-o much to me!


Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 11:49:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,925
Neurons: 51,153
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FD, I've told you before. It's not always all about you. But Hey, I like that emoji. I saved it. Thanks.
BobShilling
Posted: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 11:58:47 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,421
Neurons: 7,621
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:

No hypocrisy at all. Either the child is allowed to develop, be born and permitted to live, or it isn't. Simple binary decision. And it isn't me who demands sympathy for children, and at the same time, demands the right to kill them before, or at, birth.
(My emphasis added,

Except in very rare cases when the life of the mother is seriously at risk,termination of pregnancy near the time of birth just does not happen. 'Killing' them at birth is something that even the most ardent pro-choice advocates would recognise as a crime or an act committed by a person not mentally capable of making rational decisions. To mention that in this context is just a red herring.

Scientific opinion on when the fertilised ovum becomes a baby/child/human being differ. Few women are aware that they are pregnant until five weeks after conception - and not many know until later. The bundle of cells inside the womb at that time is about the size of an apple seed, about three and a third millimetres long. To equate the termination of a pregnancy then , particularly if it is the result of rape (including incest) at that point with 'killing a child', is simply perverse.

To insist, as some religious groups do, that the life of a mother must always be sacrificed if that ensures the survival of the baby is not 'pro-life'. It is pro one life rather than another. To deny the right of the mother a say in that decision is also perverse.

The question of at what stage in the pregnancy a woman should have the choice to terminate it is far too complex to go into here, but rational discussion is not possible when one or more participants in the discussion have the unshakable belief that all terminations involve the killing of a 'child'.
BobShilling
Posted: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 11:58:49 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,421
Neurons: 7,621
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:

No hypocrisy at all. Either the child is allowed to develop, be born and permitted to live, or it isn't. Simple binary decision. And it isn't me who demands sympathy for children, and at the same time, demands the right to kill them before, or at, birth.

(My emphasis added)


Except in very rare cases when the life of the mother is seriously at risk,termination of pregnancy near the time of birth just does not happen. 'Killing' them at birth is something that even the most ardent pro-choice advocates would recognise as a crime or an act committed by a person not mentally capable of making rational decisions. To mention that in this context is just a red herring.

Scientific opinion on when the fertilised ovum becomes a baby/child/human being differ. Few women are aware that they are pregnant until five weeks after conception - and not many know until later. The bundle of cells inside the womb at that time is about the size of an apple seed, about three and a third millimetres long. To equate the termination of a pregnancy at that point, particularly if it is the result of rape (including incest) with 'killing a child', is simply perverse.

To insist, as some religious groups do, that the life of a mother must always be sacrificed if that ensures the survival of the baby is not 'pro-life'. It is pro one life rather than another. To deny the right of the mother a say in that decision is also perverse.

The question of at what stage in the pregnancy a woman should have the choice to terminate it is far too complex to go into here, but rational discussion is not possible when one or more participants in the discussion have the unshakable belief that all terminations involve the 'killing of a child'.
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, August 8, 2019 1:02:25 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,925
Neurons: 51,153
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote: No hypocrisy at all. The hypocrisy comes from this being the only time uterus control people worry about life. Either the child is allowed to develop, be born and permitted to live, or it isn't. Simple binary decision. True as far as it goes. But this also shows black and white thinking where there is a shade of gray when the rights of the woman are ignored and also shows an inability to balance the rights of two groups when a conflict occurs, when nuance is needed.

And it isn't me who demands sympathy for children, and at the same time, demands the right to kill them before, or at, birth. This statement mistakenly conflates two issues with no connection - the issue of rights of women to decide what happens to their own cells versus the rights of the unborn, conflated with the issue of empathy for children who are mistreated.

Plus the demand is really for people to mind their own business! It is pure propaganda to spread such nonsense that there is a demand for the right to kill a baby at birth.

To expand a bit on the black and white thinking:


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/black-and-white-thinking_b_30747

"To see the world in black and white is to live within the contours of extremism. This outlook neatly divides the world into right versus wrong, good versus evil, and yes versus no. (And Republicans versus Democrats my addition)
This thinking is dependent upon such words as always and never...The problem with black and white thinking is that it usually does battle in a world that is nuanced and gray.

Cognitive analysis begins in black and white terms...In the world of Developmental Psychology this is called primitive thinking...Not only does black and white thinking show little appreciation for the world of gray it has even less for the concept of self-reflection."

:::
Edited: just read your post, Bob, as I was posting. Well said.
Lotje1000
Posted: Thursday, August 8, 2019 3:22:19 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,091
Neurons: 596,908
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
FounDit wrote:
Exactly when did I say I wanted government to impose control on women's bodies? uh...never.

You certainly don't seem very kind to people who want women to have a choice in what happens to their bodies. You prefer to refer to them as demanding "the right to kill them when they are convenient"
So you demonise women who want to be able to have an abortion, but claim you don't want the government to impose control on women's bodies. So where do you stand on the matter?


FounDit wrote:
You don't say how you would do that. Are you advocating punishment for "thought crimes"?

I thought it was obvious. Gun control. You know, the thing you don't want people to even consider. Things like stricter background checks (which President Trump got rid of and is now looking to reestablish), mandatory firearms training, regular refresher courses on that training, optional psychological support for people who have had to fire a weapon, restriction on the types of weapons that become available, etc.

FounDit wrote:

Lotje1000 wrote:
Doesn't seem that hard, that's what you do with cars already.

No it isn't.

Yes it is. You say it below, there's training on how to use them. You need a license, registration and license plate, proof of purchase. There are far more checks involved with cars than there are with guns currently.

And again, that's for a mode of transportation that might kill someone if misued - not a tool deliberately designed to kill.


FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Yet there are restrictions to ownership and ability to drive a car.

Not for the whole population simply because someone misuses one. We advocate training for the use of them, just as we do for guns.

Are you saying training is optional? That the whole population doesn't need driver's ed or a license to have a car? Or that road laws are more like road guidelines?

FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Additionally:
- There aren't that many mass murders happening with a car, where 1 person deliberately ends the lives of so many.

Did you miss these events?

No, I didn't. That's why I specifically said "that many mass murders". You named 5 events. Compare that to the Mass shootings archive's list for 2019. Mass shootings also have their own wikipedia page.

FounDit wrote:

Exactly. When your life is threatened, or those of your family, you want something designed to produce death for your attacker: knife, gun, club, sword, etc.

And, I would hope, you'd want to have the training and support to do that properly. There are far more checks in place to ensure people know how to drive their car according to the law than there are for people's purchase and use of guns.

FounDit wrote:

Once again you miss the point, deliberately so, I think. The whole of society isn't restricted to obtaining prescriptions simply because someone abuses them. Illogical argument.

The whole point of prescriptions is that you need the doctor's authorization to be allowed to take certain medication. People's access to that medication is restricted in order to prevent abuse.
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, August 8, 2019 11:55:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,233
Neurons: 60,694
BobShilling wrote:
FounDit wrote:

No hypocrisy at all. Either the child is allowed to develop, be born and permitted to live, or it isn't. Simple binary decision. And it isn't me who demands sympathy for children, and at the same time, demands the right to kill them before, or at, birth.
(My emphasis added,

Except in very rare cases when the life of the mother is seriously at risk,termination of pregnancy near the time of birth just does not happen.

'Killing' them at birth is something that even the most ardent pro-choice advocates would recognise as a crime or an act committed by a person not mentally capable of making rational decisions. To mention that in this context is just a red herring.
Then you haven't been paying attention to what's been happening here in the States. New York recently passes a law that permits the killing of the child even up until birth.

Scientific opinion on when the fertilised ovum becomes a baby/child/human being differ. Few women are aware that they are pregnant until five weeks after conception - and not many know until later. The bundle of cells inside the womb at that time is about the size of an apple seed, about three and a third millimetres long. To equate the termination of a pregnancy then , particularly if it is the result of rape (including incest) at that point with 'killing a child', is simply perverse.
And yet many women are demanding the right to do so.

To insist, as some religious groups do, that the life of a mother must always be sacrificed if that ensures the survival of the baby is not 'pro-life'. It is pro one life rather than another. To deny the right of the mother a say in that decision is also perverse.
I agree with that.

The question of at what stage in the pregnancy a woman should have the choice to terminate it is far too complex to go into here, but rational discussion is not possible when one or more participants in the discussion have the unshakable belief that all terminations involve the killing of a 'child'.

Well, it certainly isn't the killing of a chicken, or a mouse. It is a developing human. But that isn't the real point, and is a deflection from the real point; that one can't rail about concern for children and demand the right to end them when they are inconvenient at the same time. It's hypocritical.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.