The right to bear arms, first and foremost, should go to women and gays. - Page 2

Sock Puppet · #26 02-09-2017, 05:19 AM

It'd have to be a pretty long-term schedule, 'cause he's been like this for years. Hopefully his liver is okay.

Gonzo · #27 02-16-2017, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gonzo

I appreciate the sentiment that oppressed classes should be able to protect themselves. I'm not so sure how under threat that is, but I do find it unsettling that mental illness disqualifies a person from getting a gun but not toxic political ideology. I personally support disarming the government much more than I support disarming citizens unless they've been convicted of a violent crime (not out of self-defense, etc).

How long do you think the U.S. would stand if it did not have a standing army?

Regards
DL

I think global initiatives against war and promoting education should be top priority followed by dealing with exponential population growth and climate change; in terms of global policy. Obviously a lot of us are concerned and putting our best foot forward, but many people are not. I don't suggest we give up our military entirely, just that humanity evolves past the primitive belief of exceptionally superior groups and xenophobia. This line of thinking is like peeling an onion, positively, but these are ideals I think we should and can continue to work towards for the benefit of collective humanity. Some people are stubborn and narrow minded in the sense of thinking war can put an end to war. These people should no longer be produced by our institutions.

Gonzo · #28 02-16-2017, 11:09 AM

And my point was solely to say disarmament of the general population but not governments is a grossly submissive position to take towards your "superiors."

Gonzo · #29 02-16-2017, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Speculative nonsense is always lengthy.

Not at all: you seem to manage it in very few lines.

You claim male violence as a good reason to give females and homosexuals (male homosexuals apparently don't count as real males) easier access to firearms.

Rather than, say, doing something about the way we accept male violence as normal, to be expected, kind of natural.
.

We do accept male violence as more normal. Look at any school yard.

You might also look at any other mammal to see how it is almost always the males that are the most violent.

Recognizing our own violence prone male natures is why I think it stupid to allow males to arm themselves more than females.

To continue to do the same thing while expecting things to get better is insane.

Regards
DL

Are males allowed more access to weaponry than females or are you just making it up as you go along?

Also, please prove with evidence how people assigned male at birth on the basis of genitalia are inherently more violent than females who are gendered in the same way. Have you considered that the prominence of "male violence" is due to perpetually continued cultural norms as opposed to a genetic or hormonal fault?

...

Gonzo · #30 02-16-2017, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

You might also look at any other mammal to see how it is almost always the males that are the most violent.

That is what I mean: we accept male violence, and then mumble something vague about how this is some sort of general biologically determined thing, probably. This is lovely and simple, and saves us having to think too hard about things like privilege, uneven distributions of power, and social norms that have developed during thousands of years of the kind of sexism that even you would find extreme.

It is like saying 19th century aristocrats are just naturally more suitable for officer's roles in the Navy. It helps to legitimize the status quo as somehow pre-ordained, the result of a natural law, rather than the result of a system that favors a group of people you belong to.

That is what I meant by

Quote:

the equating of social mores with some sort of ordained natural order in order to legitimize a condescending paternalism

And yes indeed, down that road you go, pretty much as predicted.

Sure, but it beats denying the truth.

We men cannot or will not grant women and gays equality if we do not recognize that it is men who are denying them that equality.

We will not change our natures or get them to do the right thing if we deny what we are.

Regards
DL

The Ladies & The Gays vs The Men

Amirite

Gonzo · #31 02-16-2017, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

We men cannot or will not grant women and gays equality if we do not recognize that it is men who are denying them that equality.

We will not change our natures or get them to do the right thing if we deny what we are.

Regards
DL

So legitimizing male violence by calling it natural is required to stop legitimizing male violence as natural. Gotcha.

Should I be more drunk for this thread?

Wait, no; that will cause my natural male violence to boil up and bring me to start supporting assault rifle bans.

Gonzo · #32 02-16-2017, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

We men cannot or will not grant women and gays equality if we do not recognize that it is men who are denying them that equality.

Until this dipshit thread came along, I had no idea that it's impossible to be gay and a man simultaneously.

That's because your male anger is blinding you.

Gonzo · #33 02-16-2017, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

I'm not sure if he's an idiot or on some weird combination of prescription drugs.

Now, now... I know plenty of people on weird combinations of prescription drugs and not one of them are this disconnected from reality.

Angakuk · #34 02-17-2017, 06:06 AM

I am confused. I thought that Michele Obama had already established that women have the right bare their arms.

Gnostic Christian Bishop · #35 02-17-2017, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

We men cannot or will not grant women and gays equality if we do not recognize that it is men who are denying them that equality.

We will not change our natures or get them to do the right thing if we deny what we are.

Regards
DL

So legitimizing male violence by calling it natural is required to stop legitimizing male violence as natural. Gotcha.

Strange that you would think women to be as violent as men given the jail stats.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop · #36 02-17-2017, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gonzo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gonzo

I appreciate the sentiment that oppressed classes should be able to protect themselves. I'm not so sure how under threat that is, but I do find it unsettling that mental illness disqualifies a person from getting a gun but not toxic political ideology. I personally support disarming the government much more than I support disarming citizens unless they've been convicted of a violent crime (not out of self-defense, etc).

How long do you think the U.S. would stand if it did not have a standing army?

Regards
DL

I think global initiatives against war and promoting education should be top priority followed by dealing with exponential population growth and climate change; in terms of global policy. Obviously a lot of us are concerned and putting our best foot forward, but many people are not. I don't suggest we give up our military entirely, just that humanity evolves past the primitive belief of exceptionally superior groups and xenophobia. This line of thinking is like peeling an onion, positively, but these are ideals I think we should and can continue to work towards for the benefit of collective humanity. Some people are stubborn and narrow minded in the sense of thinking war can put an end to war. These people should no longer be produced by our institutions.

Putting our best foot forward is what Glasnost was all about and that is why I recommend it be revived.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop · #37 02-17-2017, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gonzo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Speculative nonsense is always lengthy.

Not at all: you seem to manage it in very few lines.

You claim male violence as a good reason to give females and homosexuals (male homosexuals apparently don't count as real males) easier access to firearms.

Rather than, say, doing something about the way we accept male violence as normal, to be expected, kind of natural.
.

We do accept male violence as more normal. Look at any school yard.

You might also look at any other mammal to see how it is almost always the males that are the most violent.

Recognizing our own violence prone male natures is why I think it stupid to allow males to arm themselves more than females.

To continue to do the same thing while expecting things to get better is insane.

Regards
DL

Are males allowed more access to weaponry than females or are you just making it up as you go along?

Also, please prove with evidence how people assigned male at birth on the basis of genitalia are inherently more violent than females who are gendered in the same way. Have you considered that the prominence of "male violence" is due to perpetually continued cultural norms as opposed to a genetic or hormonal fault?

...

I blame it on testosterone and not what is between our legs.

If a cultural norm, one might wonder why the U.S. jails more for violence than all the other nations.

Regards
DL