Florida School Shooting

[Darth Executor]

and racist people (e.g., neo-nazis, etc.) tend to be right more often than they are left - I am being prejudiced with no justification.
"Racism" has nothing to do with being "politically conservative," so I am justifying my views on the basis of a correlation without a causal link. Likewise if I call them racist because they call themselves Christian and the KKK calls itself a Christian organization, I am again, unjustified in making that claim.

If racist people tend to be right more often than left (not true, depends who they're racist against) then it's not prejudice to claim racism has something to do with being politically conservative. At best it's a broad brush, which you try to rectify by shutting down your brain (literally). Judging (and pre-judging) is a vital component of rationality. Without it you're not just less than human, you're not even a beast. Even animals judge based on their instincts.

If I call someone "racist," however, because they are a card-carrying member of the KKK - then my prejudice has merit. The purpose of that organization is racism - and joining is a act conveying agreement with the organization.

Is that even prejudice? I mean, if you already know they're a member of the KKK...

[Cow Poke]

I'm not suggesting you do. I'm suggesting that you're misapplying your experience to what I am saying.

I disagree.

You have described a backdrop in which people who had run afoul of the law were being "excused" on the basis of being "children" or a "victim of circumstance."

Actually, I mentioned some things that reminded me of why I think like I do.

No one is questioning that experience, or your distaste for it. I actually share some of that distaste. But you reacted to my statement about Mr. Cruz as if my use of "child" were of the same ilk.

Because I think it is.

At no point did I say I was excusing his behavior - you apparently added that to my meaning on the basis of your experience. That is what I am referencing.

And I addressed that.

[Darth Executor]

I think that is actually a reasonably good definition of it. In any society there tend to be both subtle and overt advantages in being members of a majority/powerful group. That is a pretty well-documented sociological finding across all sorts of societies and social groupings. 'White privilege' is the tag given to refer to how those effects play out in Western societies with regard to skin-color.

That is objectively not the only way in which it is used. So no, this is wrong.

There seems to be a lot wrong with that question...

More like your reading comprehension is suffering.

1. You imply that an unarmed populace would have more civil wars than an armed populace. That seems backward. With a heavily armed populace, the people would often be thinking about rising up against the government, and you'd be more likely to have a civil war. (Need I point out that the heavily-armed US has had a civil war, whereas here in unarmed NZ we haven't?)

No and I am not even speaking in the abstract, I am saying that trying to disarm the american population is more likely to result in an american civil war than just about anything else.

2. How is people in a democratic society wanting to have no guns around, and getting politicians to enact that, "trick[ing] people into disarming themselves" putting them "at the mercy of the predator"?

What does democracy have to do with anything? You can trick people into democratically doing stupid things all the time. Democracy in no way confers legitimacy to anything.

What predator? Are you thinking of some Stalin-like dictator who is stripping the people of guns? But then that's not a democratic society, and he's not tricking them. My country has had strong gun control laws for decades... it hasn't been at the mercy of any predators lately - actually I see today it got named (yet again) the least corrupt country in the world. Here our politicians actually do the will of the voters. I've got no gun... where are these predators coming to steal my freedom?

Your country is shielded by the international community (by which i mostly mean America). If America suddenly withdrew from world affairs and a big country like China decided it wanted what you have you would be turned into slaves in a matter of weeks. And btw, the predators I am thinking of is progressives (like you).

Anyway, give it some time. As NZ becomes more multicultural you will learn about predation and corruption firsthand.

3. It strikes me as a very crazy notion that people would be able to fight off their own government with guns. You realize the US govt has nukes, drones, bombers, aircraft carriers etc, right? Even if every single gun-toting crazy in Texas stood together against the US govt, the US military could roll right over them if it really wanted. For this reason, what generally matters in revolutions is not how well the people are armed, it is the willingness or lack thereof of the military forces to attack their own people if commanded to. That is usually achieved better through non-violent protest, because the military personal tend to feel bad about their actions pretty fast if they are gunning down peaceful protesters, whereas they tend to feel like they are validly defending themselves if they are being attacked by people with serious weaponry... so if a civil war is won by getting the government military forces to side with the people over the government then a lack of weaponry on the part of the people is actually more helpful.

Large portions of the military would almost certainly defect (and take some hardware with them). At which point the side with a hundred million armed troops is the near guaranteed victor. Nukes work well only against progressives because you live in tightly packed cities. Everything else the US government has can be countered. maybe not 1 to 1 but jets and tanks are overrated. They are support units, they don't win wars on their own. well supplied infantry is the most important factor.

[carpedm9587]

I disagree.

Actually, I mentioned some things that reminded me of why I think like I do.

Because I think it is.

And I addressed that.

OK. Let's just wrap this up with one final observation.

You're wrong!



(maybe this is the issue? I make comments like this humorously. Are they being taken seriously?)

[ke7ejx]

(maybe this is the issue? I make comments like this humorously. Are they being taken seriously?)

Occasionally. Context can be fun that way.

[Zymologist]

OK. Let's just wrap this up with one final observation.

You're wrong!



(maybe this is the issue? I make comments like this humorously. Are they being taken seriously?)

If you're ever unsure if I'm joking, assume that I'm not. Take me very--indeed, dead--seriously.

That makes everything much funnier. For me.

[carpedm9587]

Occasionally. Context can be fun that way.

So apparently there is something wrong with your reasoning abilities. Perhaps because you're female...?



(OK - if my wife EVER saw that line, she would probably haul off and belt me - deservedly. But I just somehow couldn't resist....)

[carpedm9587]

If you're ever unsure if I'm joking, assume that I'm not. Take me very--indeed, dead--seriously.

That makes everything much funnier. For me.

[ke7ejx]

So apparently there is something wrong with your reasoning abilities. Perhaps because you're female...?



(OK - if my wife EVER saw that line, she would probably haul off and belt me - deservedly. But I just somehow couldn't resist....)

[Jedidiah]

Do you ever contribute anything of value in this forum or are you just a moronic troll? CP, for all his failings at least posts substance occasionally. All I've ever seen you do is be a jerk to people and I'm getting sick of seeing it.

Put away your mirror.

[carpedm9587]

I have to admit...after I posted that...I wondered if I had taken my humor too far.

My wife tells me I have a rendency to self-distruct in social situations...


(P.S. you seem to have emoji's down. What's the one with the character rubbing their chin and thinking?)

[Jedidiah]

I'm not suggesting you do. I'm suggesting that you're misapplying your experience to what I am saying. You have described a backdrop in which people who had run afoul of the law were being "excused" on the basis of being "children" or a "victim of circumstance." No one is questioning that experience, or your distaste for it. I actually share some of that distaste. But you reacted to my statement about Mr. Cruz as if my use of "child" were of the same ilk. At no point did I say I was excusing his behavior - you apparently added that to my meaning on the basis of your experience. That is what I am referencing.

"Misapplying experience," in your view, seems to mean "your experience leads to to a different conclusion than I already have in place."

[carpedm9587]

"Misapplying experience," in your view, seems to mean "your experience leads to to a different conclusion than I already have in place."

No - it means that he is using his experience to add meaning to something I posted that was not my intent/meaning in the original post (i.e., that I was excusing Cruz's behavior by referring to him as a child). He and I apparently agree that this young man's status as a man/child (and apparently more child than man) does not excuse his behavior, and he should be subject to the full extent of the law and held accountable for his actions.

[Zymologist]

Every once in a while my wife will give me this weird look, like "...I can't tell if you're joking."

Hearing that is like music to my ears. Success!

[Mountain Man]

Every once in a while my wife will give me this weird look, like "...I can't tell if you're joking."

Hearing that is like music to my ears. Success!

Every once in a while? I hear that from my wife all the time. My delivery is so deadpan and my sense of humor so dry that my wife takes me seriously far more often than she should. I get it from my dad. Even after 50-years of marriage, my mom still can't always tell when my dad is joking. It's hilarious.