Assault weapon bans

[Rampion]

.
You wouldn't be able to guess that looking at America now. It is way more sexually repressed than most of Europe. So, compare the sexually repressed America to the much more sexually liberal Europe, and you'll clearly see that more repression here has resulted in more sexual problems.........

NONSENSE...

maybe we just figured out that preachers' daughters were hot....

Derailing the thread here, but a quick observation. Isn't it perverse that every night on TV I can see a brutal murder followed by a grotesque autopsy. They might be burned to death or beheaded, etc. But, show a nipple on TV and it's pornography!!! Someone must go to jail and be punished for this. That seems very sick to me.

It would be so, except things are not as you have described.  You and I can on the cable, see movies with their versions of sexuality, or subscribe to the playboy channel etc, or hit the internet  nipples ad nauseum.

The old rules of broadcast television are just a blip while we speed down the road.

As an aside, one interesting aspect of South Africa was the radically different treatment of nudity on broadcast television.  But they got massive other kinds of problems...

Really? You do not have porn on TV in the US? Not even a "nipple"? I hope you are joking. Do you really need to have cable to watch Playboy channel, which is mostly softcore at least in Europe?

We have hardcore porn on TV on weekends night in Europe since the '80s, in some countries since the '70s. I knew the US was fucked up, but I didn't know it was SO bad.

[mdude77]

We have hardcore porn on TV on weekends night in Europe since the '80s, in some countries since the '70s. I knew the US was fucked up, but I didn't know it was SO bad.

There is a lot of insincere prudishness here.  I don't understand it.  It's full of irony.

M

[Rampion]

We have hardcore porn on TV on weekends night in Europe since the '80s, in some countries since the '70s. I knew the US was fucked up, but I didn't know it was SO bad.

There is a lot of insincere prudishness here.  I don't understand it.  It's full of irony.

M

Sorry, didn't get you. Care to explain?

[mdude77]

We have hardcore porn on TV on weekends night in Europe since the '80s, in some countries since the '70s. I knew the US was fucked up, but I didn't know it was SO bad.

There is a lot of insincere prudishness here.  I don't understand it.  It's full of irony.

M

Sorry, didn't get you. Care to explain?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prude

A prude (Old French prude meaning honourable woman)[1] is a person who is described as (or would describe themselves as) being concerned with decorum or propriety, significantly in excess of normal prevailing community standards. They may be perceived as being more uncomfortable than most with sexuality or nudity.

Insincere because we have laws about "exposing yourself", yet there is sexuality flaunted in your face everywhere.

I personally think it's a conspiracy.

M

[PrintMule]

So we should remove our focus on contraception then? Simply ignore it, yes?

Yes. Teach it like any other biology lesson, and treat it as a non-issue.

Higher instances of unwanted pregnancies compared to what? Exactly.

Practically every country in Europe.

America was the start point for sexual revolution around the world, there you have it.

You wouldn't be able to guess that looking at America now. It is way more sexually repressed than most of Europe. So, compare the sexually repressed America to the much more sexually liberal Europe, and you'll clearly see that more repression here has resulted in more sexual problems.

Drinking age is completely different issue. Why do you think lowering the age will lower poisoning count? Do those teens buy black market low quality stuff because they cannot buy in shops? No. They buy same stuff as you from same shops. If you open the gates, there will be same if not bigger amount of poisonings, cause restrains might keep some 2% at bay.

If that were true, you'd think that drinking problems were higher in countries where drinking age is lower, or more like guideline than a law, but the contrary is true. Why? Same reason sex, drugs, and guns are a problem here: we try to repress them, and end up with the "forbidden fruit" problem. It's easy for kids to get alcohol in Italy, so they don't care about it, and prefer things like gelato. It's hard to get alcohol here, so kids actively seek it out, just because they can't normally get it, and it's considered cool to get what others can't.

About comparing to other countries, I meant the you cannot compare america to europe with pregnancies issue, it's apples and oranges.

Sexual revolution boom came with condoms. "Yay, we can fuck without consequences now, let's make some orgies right here!" After every progression, naturally comes regression. "Yeah, he came on my face, when my nephew came in, and larry was filming. I think it's too much for kids to see this".  Sense of overdoing it.

I hope i will not see the day when heroin becomes over the counter thing. Cigarettes are not hard to get, and still youngsters are dumb enough to smoke. If I were to be a dictator I would outlaw all tabacco and hard drugs, with public beheadings and stuff. And hard enforcing. People would get the message after time. I want alchohol to be hard to get, I don't want drunk kids seen around, or doing crazy things. You can get booze, but you cannot be drinking openly in public if you're a minor. It's not about simply getting it.

[Mike Christ]

If I were to be a dictator I would outlaw all tabacco and hard drugs, with public beheadings and stuff. And hard enforcing. People would get the message after time.

Precisely why a central source of power is so dangerous.  The more concentrated it is, the more the insanity ensues.

On a related note, I have concluded that I do not want to be an admin on any TF2 server; the server would be empty before long.

[Spendulus]

.
You wouldn't be able to guess that looking at America now. It is way more sexually repressed than most of Europe. So, compare the sexually repressed America to the much more sexually liberal Europe, and you'll clearly see that more repression here has resulted in more sexual problems.........

NONSENSE...

maybe we just figured out that preachers' daughters were hot....

Derailing the thread here, but a quick observation. Isn't it perverse that every night on TV I can see a brutal murder followed by a grotesque autopsy. They might be burned to death or beheaded, etc. But, show a nipple on TV and it's pornography!!! Someone must go to jail and be punished for this. That seems very sick to me.

It would be so, except things are not as you have described.  You and I can on the cable, see movies with their versions of sexuality, or subscribe to the playboy channel etc, or hit the internet  nipples ad nauseum.

The old rules of broadcast television are just a blip while we speed down the road.

As an aside, one interesting aspect of South Africa was the radically different treatment of nudity on broadcast television.  But they got massive other kinds of problems...

Really? You do not have porn on TV in the US? Not even a "nipple"? I hope you are joking. Do you really need to have cable to watch Playboy channel, which is mostly softcore at least in Europe?

We have hardcore porn on TV on weekends night in Europe since the '80s, in some countries since the '70s. I knew the US was fucked up, but I didn't know it was SO bad.

I can't recall seeing a nipple on "broadcast tv", but I have not watched it in years, so someone might correct me.  And of course, what we get on cable/pay per view is the same as what you get, the same Hollywood stuff, with the same calculated percentages of sex/blood/gore/car chases etc.  I don't watch that either for about 3 years, but we do rent and buy movies and the better of the serials - Boardwalk, Breaking bad, Wired, Hell on Wheels are examples.  And I've never considered subscribing to the playboy channel that's pretty much a joke - it was also a calculated marketing effort with narrow markets.

I think it's fair to say that porn in the US went from VCR/DVD straight to internet.  

One essential problem here is that even to seriously discuss what entertainment is available on the networks is to admit that you've fallen for the propaganda traps purveyed therein along with the content you think you're getting.  We see a lot of Europeans who have fallen for this and don't even realize it.  Of course the reverse is likely equally true.

But here in the USA we ain't giving no Obama no Nobel Peace Prize.   That's your fucked up friends up north a bit get credit for that one.

[Biomech]

What is the first rule of gun safety?

It's likely always assume a gun is loaded.

Close to that would be don't point the gun at something you don't intend to kill.

Third would be keep your finger off the trigger unless you are about to fire.

M

first one is correct. Developed by the Marines in the 1800's.

I would amend the second line to are not willing to kill, as quite often the intent is to defuse the situation, and the third isn't really a rule but is a good adjunct. I have not memorized the rest of the list, as it's all clarification of the first rule. Such as be sure of your back drop, aim carefully, things like that.

I am happily surprised that someone was so quick with that. In the cities I've lived in, people come up with all kinds of really wacky stuff. The one I hear the most often is never point a gun at someone. That makes me nuts. In a SHTF situation, even just a personal one, you are of course HOPING to point your gun at the aggressor before they can do unto you.

Never met a country boy (or girl for that matter) who didn't know the rule.

[Light]

Hah, easiest decision in the world. Ban ALL guns. I've never seen the merit in allowing civilians to readily access firearms and I still don't. All you are doing is giving more power to the masses to terrorize each other with.

[Biomech]

Hah, easiest decision in the world. Ban ALL guns. I've never seen the merit in allowing civilians to readily access firearms and I still don't. All you are doing is giving more power to the masses to terrorize each other with.

so you don't believe in the idea that government is to SERVE the people, rather than be our masters?

[Light]

so you don't believe in the idea that government is to SERVE the people, rather than be our masters?

Well I live in the land of Oz and we've had guns outlawed since 1996 and it's been a smooth time. Sure I do agree that they should serve the people, and it's in the people's best interest to have ALL guns banned simple as that.

[mdude77]

What is the first rule of gun safety?

It's likely always assume a gun is loaded.

Close to that would be don't point the gun at something you don't intend to kill.

Third would be keep your finger off the trigger unless you are about to fire.

M

first one is correct. Developed by the Marines in the 1800's.

I would amend the second line to are not willing to kill, as quite often the intent is to defuse the situation, and the third isn't really a rule but is a good adjunct. I have not memorized the rest of the list, as it's all clarification of the first rule. Such as be sure of your back drop, aim carefully, things like that.

I am happily surprised that someone was so quick with that. In the cities I've lived in, people come up with all kinds of really wacky stuff. The one I hear the most often is never point a gun at someone. That makes me nuts. In a SHTF situation, even just a personal one, you are of course HOPING to point your gun at the aggressor before they can do unto you.

Never met a country boy (or girl for that matter) who didn't know the rule.

I agree about the 2nd ... not willing as opposed to intend.

ps.  I'm not a city boy.  But I think I learned it in a NRA gun safety course at the store I bought my first pistol from.

M

[mdude77]

Hah, easiest decision in the world. Ban ALL guns. I've never seen the merit in allowing civilians to readily access firearms and I still don't. All you are doing is giving more power to the masses to terrorize each other with.

Governments and military and their hired thugs must disarm first.

However, that won't solve the underlying issue.  Without guns, this discussion would be about swords.

M

[Mike Christ]

What this debate, and all debates on politics, boil down to is thus:

Are you pro-freedom, or pro-authority?

The odd part is, you must be pro-freedom on all topics to count as pro-freedom; to be pro-authority on anything is to be pro-authority on everything, as government does not pick and choose what any single individual believes should be up to the individual or not; it just sucks in everyone's thoughts on what government should regulate and regulates everything, including the things certain people don't want it to regulate.  It's easier to add law, than to take away, as every law gives government that much more power over its citizens, and the bigger it gets, the harder it is to counteract it: this is the pro-authority stance, the same perspective that has given us the dysfunctional American government of today.

However, it is my belief that, if democracy is functional, then that means people are functional without democracy, for if democracy is necessary, the people are dysfunctional without it, and thus, democracy cannot work with a dysfunctional people as it requires its people to actually be able to think and participate, and if they could think and participate, they would already be doing so without the help of democracy.  So, I take a pro-freedom stance, as I do not believe people require a higher power to be told what to do and how to do it; it is in my belief that people readily have their self-interest in mind, which is eroded when they are told they cannot think for themselves as only government can tell them what's best for them (e.g. "We must ban all the guns", or even the unlikely "We must not ban all the guns"; it doesn't matter, since people already know what they want), and so a dependency is created.

If ever there is a time where you say, "We have to ban X because it's just obvious/for our own good/people can't figure it out on their own", remember it's people who make democracy function, making this statement redundant, for it assumes people both can and cannot think for themselves (or rather, the person saying this has taken an authoritative stance in the assumption that he is more intelligent/powerful than his peers.)  The only explanation to this idea is that government is not by the people, but its own entity, making its own laws in its own benefit through corrupt politicians and business owners, and the pro-authority individual just loves the idea of manipulating this system for their own benefit, even at, or ignoring, the expense of others.

Yes, guns are made to kill people.  But remember that it's through guns that we ban guns, and if you believe guns should be banned, you must absolutely believe government should disappear, and yet this is the dissonance I constantly hear in these arguments, because you cannot be pro-authority and anti-gun; in fact, pro-authority individuals require guns, they absolutely love the idea of guns, or else their authoritative stance simply disappears: nobody cares about the demands of an unarmed individual.  If you believe citizens should be banned from having guns, but government should still have them, this only reinforces the idea that government is not of the people; it is its own entity, passing laws for its own needs, made even more easy as there's close to a 0% chance they'll be overthrown.

Please, for the love of Christ, anti-gun proponents, lose the ambivalence and understand what it is you're asking for: you cannot be in favor of politics and against guns and killing, for politics necessitates the other; you cannot, ever, ever, ever, have both a powerful and benevolent government, for that power stems from their ability to kill, with guns, and tanks, and missiles, etc.  The government with the ability to ban guns is the government with all the guns and is using them, often.

[kokjo]

The odd part is, you must be pro-freedom on all topics to count as pro-freedom; to be pro-authority on anything is to be pro-authority on everything

Welcome to the world of black-or-white of the libertards.

[Mike Christ]

The odd part is, you must be pro-freedom on all topics to count as pro-freedom; to be pro-authority on anything is to be pro-authority on everything

Welcome to the world of black-or-white of the libertards.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Sorry, try again.  And this time, please, put a little effort in it; I know believing yourself to always be right is wonderful, but it really only serves to make you stupid over time; after all, why learn anything, you already know it all, right?

[kokjo]

The odd part is, you must be pro-freedom on all topics to count as pro-freedom; to be pro-authority on anything is to be pro-authority on everything

Welcome to the world of black-or-white of the libertards.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

[Mike Christ]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

Then tell me the alternative to either being in favor of politics, or not; not caring about politics does not change the fact that it is there.

[kokjo]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

Then tell me the alternative to either being in favor of politics, or not; not caring about politics does not change the fact that it is there.

No, that was not your original statement. That statement you just wrote is an instantiation of the law of noncontradiction(you can't care and not care at the same time), and black-or-white logic is then applicable.
This statement on the other hand is not:

The odd part is, you must be pro-freedom on all topics to count as pro-freedom; to be pro-authority on anything is to be pro-authority on everything

It's a fallacy. I really hope you can see why.

[Mike Christ]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

Then tell me the alternative to either being in favor of politics, or not; not caring about politics does not change the fact that it is there.

No, that was not your original statement. That statement you just wrote is an instantiation of the law of noncontradiction(you can't care and not care at the same time), and black-or-white logic is then applicable.
This statement on the other hand is not:

The odd part is, you must be pro-freedom on all topics to count as pro-freedom; to be pro-authority on anything is to be pro-authority on everything

It's a fallacy. I really hope you can see why.

It's not; in fact, I explain, in the very next sentence, how being in favor of any government leads to being in favor of all government.  You do not get to pick and choose which government you want to be apart of, and which parts you do not; if the majority believes smoking should be banned, smoking is banned, despite how smokers feel.  If those same smokers and the majoirty believe abortion should be banned, both abortions and smoking are banned.  So on and so forth.  To believe in government, is to subject yourself to every law; you cannot be pro-authority and not accept all authority.  To be pro-authority is to subject yourself to everyone elses authority (also handed to the central government), and if you feel, just one thing, just one tiny little thing needs to be banned, you must accept all other bans as fair, or accept none, not even your own proposed ban.

If you seek government to get your way, you are pro-authority, no matter what you believe government should have authority over.  To be pro-freedom is to not believe coercion is right, and as all government is coercion, you cannot believe in rulers to be in favor of freedom; this means:

You must be pro-freedom on all topics to count as pro-freedom; to be pro-authority on anything is to be pro-authority on everything.

And by the way, you're ignoring the rest of my post.  Stop nit-picking and actually take the entire argument into consideration.