The separation of church and state in the US was never intended to remove the idea of God from law. This was meant as a way to declare independence not only from other nations, but from religious institutions (such as the Roman Catholic church) as well. In addition to this, it was meant as a way to preserve people's freedom to worship any God they choose, or no God at all, because the state is intended to be neutral to all religious dogmas. In fact the very basis of law, especially the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are based on the concept that there is something bigger than you, me, or any government, and that those ideals should be protected above all else. To remove God from law is to remove your own rights as a human being. The very concept of spirituality is the basis of all of our rights under the law, other wise human beings would be nothing more than property to be owned, used, and disposed of by more powerful humans.

This is part of a long term strategy devised long before 9-11 to build gas and oil pipelines thru that region in order to give Europe energy independence from Russia. This is in reality a war that began before world war one, and it never really ended. Iraq, Turkey, and parts of Syria will be chopped up and formed into new autonomous regions ruled by different religious sects as well as the Turkish government. Seeing as turkey stands to gain land, and that the pipeline will pass thru its territory, this would significantly increase their geopolitical leverage, so they have a vested interest in cooperating with this plan. This is the whole reason the US has created al qaeda and ISIS. With this influence, they control the opposition and use it to create the proper amount of regional chaos in order to sap resistance as well as provide pretext for meddling in local affairs and allowing the corporate pillage of local land and resources.

This^
You would be amazed at how many people are ignorant of the fact that all purchases from gun dealers require a background check by federal law. The myth that some states do not require it is perpetuated by fear mongering media hype like this.

Again, I bring you back to the issue of effective enforcement and prevention of "mission creep" and abuse of these newly issued powers, which has still not been addressed. Also who makes the rules and draws the lines? Just like gun control in general, this is a really good idea that sounds great, but is missing the parts that show how it would implemented effectively and respectfully regarding people's rights. Additionally, even if they did do it correctly, why would crazy people care about following the law when murder is already illegal? Do you really believe they would not be able to find an illegal weapon if they so desired? It is safer to err on the side of caution and make sure the maximal number of law abiding citizens are armed so as to be able to respond most effectively when crazies do get a hold of firearms. Gun control is treating the symptom of gun violence, not the source. The source is not guns themselves, but the increasingly poor mental health of the American populace. Gun control is like giving cough medicine to some one with lung cancer. It may provide temporary and superficial relief, but the source of the destructive element still remains unhindered, allowed to fester untreated.

As far as your suggestion of subsidizing firearms training, that was not my suggestion at all, but your own idea. I am opposed to the idea in whole because as I stated, it provides yet another barrier of entry for the most at risk elements of society, those that live in poverty and crime stricken areas. If I had to design a system of mandatory firearms training, I would model it after the Swiss system of a short period of mandatory civil service under which every citizen is trained with firearms and prepared as a civil defense force, along with mandatory firearm ownership in every household. Every indication shows this is the most effective model relating to gun ownership, and this would be the only circumstances under which I would support mandatory firearms training for general ownership. Again, I think training is a very good idea, but the question is not if it is a good idea, but how do you do so without putting those at most risk in harms way even more so?


Step 1: Collect Underpants
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Profit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts

You don't agree with Liathon ... therefore science says you must be a theist.

Of course, he has a habit of doing this. If he doesn't make his own arguments then he can never be proven wrong because he never states the supposed self proclaimed factual basis from which he derives his ideology. In this way he can have an endless argument over opinions while never once supporting his stance with scientific studies. Just look a few posts back, he just cited the entire bibliography of a book as if the collection of studies some how support his argument in whole, absolving himself from the responsibility of supporting any one individual study. Quite a fallacious, cowardly, and intellectually dishonest way to "debate".

Sorry but you don't just get to take a bibliography from a book and claim they all back your argument. Make one premise and support it with as many studies as you can. This behavior is not just incredibly lazy, but intellectually dishonest. If you believe there is science behind your argument PICK A STUDY AND STAND BEHIND IT. Of course you won't though, because you and I both know your ignorance of scientific method in general is so great you are terrified to pick a study and stand behind it for fear of your ignorance and intellectual dishonesty being exposed.

Re: http://www.thetaskforce.org/static_html/downloads/reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf
Self reported surveys, the pinnacle of scientific method! At least you are learning how to reference things (even if it is still unscientific).

Don't strain yourself too hard looking for facts, logic, or reason from Liathon. There is none of that to be found.

I agree, gun control results in more violent crime.


The training course seems reasonable on the surface, but what about poor people? Aren't you effectively limiting the most in danger segment of the populations ability to protect themselves by forcing them to pay for a class, take off work, and actually go to classes? As for the waiting period, this is already law in most states.

By federal law everyone has a background check on them when buying a gun from a dealer. As far as your mental health evaluation, 1/5th of the entire country is on at least 1 psychiatric medication. Even if the mental health evaluations start off as reasonable, you know damned well it won't stop there. It could easily include anyone on any psychiatric meds, then anyone with depression, or anxiety, or even family history of issues.

Using the excuse of "mental health evaluations" you could effectively disarm more than half of the US population. I agree crazy people shouldn't have guns, but the issue is not if crazy people should have guns, it is how do you effectively enforce this is a in REALITY without stripping the rights of millions of others as well. Additionally perhaps instead of treating the symptom of gun violence, maybe we should be treating the USA's crazy person problem instead. The mental health care options in the US are almost nil unless you have the big bucks to afford it, which IMO is one of the primary causes of this issue along with certain types of psychiatric meds.

I find most social justice warriors do in fact deny the biological component of homosexuality/transgender people, because in order for them to justify their "progressive" cult ideology, they have to sell people on the idea that society is 100% responsible and therefore needs to be forcefully reorganized to accommodate their progressive cultist dogmas. I would recommend looking at the history of Feminism and Marxism, and how closely the two ideologies are intertwined a long with many of the same goals, such as destruction of the family unit and abolition of religion. It will provide some amazing insights into the true driving forces behind all these social movements happening today operating under the self proclaimed guise of tolerance and equality.

You bring up a very important point that social justice warriors and progressive cultists like to dance around. There is a biological component to gender identity. Gender identity is not just a social construct, it also has basis in biology and hormonal balance. Of course to bring this point up is to some how deny transgender people the ability to identify as they like and even a form of hate speech! Better not discuss any facts, it might offend some one's ideology.

People in the USA will defend their right to own guns literally to their deaths. On its surface this seems senseless and insane, until you realize how much more senseless and insane our government is, and what the costs of allowing it to continue unchecked is. Guns aren't just to protect us from murderers, rapists, and thieves walking the streets. It is too easily forgotten that the government is made up of people too, and people are imperfect.

Imagine how much harder it would have been for Hitler to set up Nazi Germany if the German people remained armed. Disarmament of the general population ALWAYS results in tyranny. The right to bear arms is the one right that is designed to protect all other rights. This is why Americans are so passionate about it, because removing the right to bear arms removes any ability for our nation's people to protect any of their other rights. Rights are meaningless unless you can back them up and take what is rightfully yours.

I feel like I am absorbing stupid via osmosis just reading this thread.

I am glad you think that the grandfather of your theories forcing a boy to live as a girl from infancy against his will eventually resulting in his suicide is so hilarious. I can't blame you though, after all the title did have the word "penis" in it, and we can't expect people like you who are emotionally at the level of a preschooler to take anything like this seriously.

Dr. Money And The Boy With No Penis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUTcwqR4Q4Y

Ignoring you doesn't change the fact that you destroy any actually legitimate debate with your baseless dogmas and evangelizing.  I don't want to silence you, I just want to limit the endless stream of fecal matter that flows from your mouth to the raw sewage holding areas you call your threads so the rest of us can have an adult discussion with things like facts and scientific studies. Still waiting for you to quote any theist statement I have made on this forum, but that isn't necessary because everyone whom disagrees with you is a theist aren't they?

Again: the topic is "Transgender", not "Liathon calls everyone theists and argues endlessly about religion."

Dr. Money And The Boy With No Penis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUTcwqR4Q4Y

Finally he reveals his true goal.... fucking 13 year olds.

The adults are trying to have a discussion with out your constant off topic propagandizing. Propagandize your own threads and let the big kids have an actual debate. Better watch yourself, that "fucktoy" might bite your dick off. Ironically then you should have no problems staying on topic because you will have plenty of transgender issues to discuss.

No one likes idiots shitting up every single thread with cultist bullshit either.

(ps, posting a picture about transgender person after your off topic post doesn't just magically make you on topic.)


Quoting for reference:


Childish? Your inability to communicate in anything but memes is not childish at all. Reason? Spongebob is pretty convincing empirical data, you got me there. PS, I wonder if anyone else finds it ironic that a social justice cultist like you supposedly arguing for gender equality would label some one with effeminate labels as if it were an insult. Way to practice what you preach