Creepy Condescending Wonka

Creepy Condescending Wonka Meme | SO YOU WANT GUN CONTROL AFTER A SCHOOL SHOOTING. TELL ME WHY YOU DIDN'T SAY THE SAME THING WHEN A MAN SHOT AT A BUNCH OF REPUBLICANS DURING  | image tagged in memes,creepy condescending wonka | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
26,443 views, 235 upvotes, Made by 43dwarves 5 months ago memescreepy condescending wonka
Creepy Condescending Wonka memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
26 ups, 4 replies
Leonardo Dicaprio Cheers Meme | TO THOSE WHO KNOW THAT GUN CONTROL HAS ZERO TO DO WITH PRESERVING LIFE BUT RATHER ADVANCING AN AGENDA | image tagged in memes,leonardo dicaprio cheers | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
18 ups, 1 reply
IT'S ALMOST AS IF THE PEOPLE IN POWER WANT TO HAVE CONTROL OF GUNS | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Upvoted
reply
6 ups
. | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
4 ups
Mocking Spongebob Meme | WHEN YOU CALL OUT THE LIBERALS FOR PUSHING THEIR AGENDA | image tagged in memes,mocking spongebob | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Seriously I’m starting to think politicians are taking advantage of this shooting
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
So who makes the money out of gun control if they have an agenda?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
It's not about money in the now. It's about, as they keep stripping away American rights and pushing the country to destruction, there will be a tipping point and civil war. And the establishment wants to have all the drones, rocket launchers, and machine guns... meanwhile civilians have pea shooters and boards with nails in them.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
AMERICA POST GUN CONTROL UNDESIRABLE CITIZEN DEATH SQUADS | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
1 up
LOL. I was thinking of that scene in the simpsons!
reply
0 ups, 3 replies
That is a HUGE step from stricter background checks and possibly an assault rifle ban to an oppressed, militaristic society with DEATH SQUADS that murders anyone who disagrees with them. Democrats want to take away assault rifles, but that doesn’t mean you can’t still own a handgun.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
They already DO have background checks. But do you know why Nikolas Cruz passed his? Because the school district made a deal with the police department to basically not arrest any of the delinquent hooligans for pretty much anything. The police was called to his house dozens of times. No arrest record. Hm.....
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
YOU JUST DESCRIBED WHY WE NEED BACKGROUND CHECKS
reply
0 ups
There WERE background checks, but they found nothing! Due to the reasons I said above. Also this bullshit where even when a minor does really disturbing things, their record is "sealed" and unavailable for background checks.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
See first they'll say "we just want a temporary ban on 'assault weapons'!". But the temporary lasts forever, and the definition of "assault weapon" gets changed.

Then they say ok, you can't have a gun bigger than x caliber! Then they say you can't have a gun with more than x rounds in a clip! Wait, forget clips, you only get a revolver with six shots! Make that 2! one! You only need one ity bitty bullet to stop and scare away an intruder or mugger, right? ...right?

Heaven forbid two or three guys in a gang come after you....

Then after all guns are taken away, they'll take away knives if they haven't already started. All for the "safety of children". But in reality, the government nor the media doesn't give two shits about children. All they care about is power.
reply
0 ups
Yup. If the government gave two shits about children, the government would pay the child support when they can't track down the deadbeat parent, instead of letting the child go hungry.
reply
2 ups
That's the point dude. They'll slowly strip away everything. That way ppl won't care and they won't riot.
What's a handgun going to do when the governments kicking in your door.
Atleast with a rifle I can take a few down with me.
Do you not realize they are slowly stripping away your rights to own a gun at all?
Do you not see it?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Career liberal politicians who make more money from Planned Parenthood murdering babies and selling their parts.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Abortion is legal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, abortion is not murder. please learn what words mean.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Explain "infanticide" then. It's the murder of a child under the age of 12 months by the mother, except that it was a charge that was invented so that mothers who did it didn't have to be charged with the more serious crime of "murder". Does that then mean it's not actually murder?

What is it, in that case? "Ultra late stage abortion"?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Anyone who kills a newborn baby (or older) is committing murder. Infanticide is murder.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
But you're talking about legalities, so by your logic, infanticide, as defined by law, is not murder.

If infanticide IS murder, despite what the law says, then so is abortion.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Infanticide, as defined by law, is murder. How did I say it's not murder?
reply
1 up, 2 replies
That's where you're getting it wrong. It's NOT murder (legally speaking), it's infanticide, a different charge from murder. Otherwise they would just charge the woman with murder. "Infanticide" was a crime invented to let women off the hook from the more serious charge of actual "murder".

It's the same thing for "abortion", except that's not legally a chargeable offense.

And don't misunderstand me, I'm pro-choice, for the most part. I don't believe the government should be able to tell /anyone/ what to do with their body; not women when it comes to abortion, not men when it comes to signing up for selective service or having to work their asses off in order to be able to pay alimony to a woman who, in this age, is supposed to be empowered enough to support herself.

No, what offends me most is the current climate of women treating abortion as nothing more than a form of late stage contraceptive ("You don't need a condom hun, if I get pregnant I'll just have an abortion, and besides, I want to be able to keep wearing bikinis!") and acting like Planned Parenthood is more than just an abortion mill.

(pro-tip, no PP anywhere gives mammograms, for example, and all PP offices have a quota of abortions they're mandated to reach on a monthly basis).
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Infanticide by definition means the killing of an infant. If it's done with malice aforethought, then it falls under murder. If it was done through negligence or recklessness, it would probably fall under manslaughter. But either way, there are criminal charges that will be brought. The word infanticide simply describes who was killed. It doesn't mean that the killing isn't illegal.

I find that claim of abortion quotas very suspicious. What do they do if they fall short of the quota? Go door to door asking women if they want to have an abortion?
1 up
Infanticide as a crime was created as a way to provide a defense to women so they could blame the crime on their hormonal imbalances (postpartum depression). If not for that, there would be no need to create a new charge. In other words, Infanticide has less to do with the age of the child and more to do with the alleged mental state of the woman.

And the thing is, women are the only ones allowed to use their hormones as a defense. A man can't be charged with infanticide, to my knowledge. In fact, men are /blamed/ for their hormonal imbalances.

As to if they fall short of the quotas? Quite simply, they get their budget reduced.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
You're saying infanticide was created as a legal defense for women, yet you're saying it's illegal. That makes no sense. How can a crime be its own legal defense?
1 up
Now you're being pedantic, but to be more accurate, and as I said before, the crime was created as a way to give them an excuse not to charge women with the more serious crime of murder.
reply
0 ups, 3 replies
Which is a Red Herring fallacy and divergence from the topic the meme is responding to, but lets take it up anyways.

Abortion is murder and it's immoral. It's against God's law and constitutional law.

Our founding documents protect the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This includes life in the womb, which means those who are authorizing abortion in this nation are breaking the law.

If law and rights our founding documents tell us come from God are not transcendent - What you're calling law or rights is nothing more than an arbitrary preference or opinion or the subjective view points of men - making it not only meaningless and arbitrary - but irrational as well.

We've had this discussion before, but we can have it again if you missed it the first time.
reply
1 up
i.imgflip.com/1oxld1.jpg (click to show)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
This country operates by the laws passed by Congress, not your god. Sorry. Your god has zero authority on matters pertaining to our justice system :)
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
First: How this country operates is another Red Herring and irrelevant to the current discussion. This discussion is about what constitutes murder - Which you have attempted to and failed to boil down to a mere legal term.

Second: The term murder is qualified by the natural law our founding documents are based on. An act such as murder is wrong or evil by its very nature. And it is the very nature of the act which does not require any specific detailing or definition in the law to consider murder a crime. .

Third: You can say " Sorry " When you've offered a valid counter argument refuting my points. God has all authority regarding out founding documents from which our justice system once flowed. That our justice system has since departed from many principles of our founding documents does nothing to argue against the intent of those documents or qualifying murder as a mere legal term such as you're attempting to do here. .
reply
1 up, 1 reply
So you're basically saying "murder is wrong by its very nature, therefore we don't need a law saying it's illegal."

If there is no law specifically saying something is illegal, then it's not illegal. You can say it's evil or wrong, but unless it is specifically prohibited by law, then it's not, by definition, illegal.

Also, as stated before, your god doesn't make the laws in this country. State and federal legislatures do. I understand that you place the god you worship as a higher authority than state or federal government. But no one else in this country is obligated to do so.

And finally, not everything someone says is a red herring. You said that murder violates god's law. I said that this country doesn't operate under the laws of your god. That is not a red herring.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that laws, like those against taking an innocent life, are a codification of natural moral law which tells us murder is wrong. This is what our founding documents are built on. Our founders wrote prolifically about this. Our founders were well aware that the health of a nation was intrinsically connected with it's morality - which is a term your world view can not account for.

James Madison, the architect for our US Constitution said
“ To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without virtue in the people is a chimerical idea “ John Adams, Founding father and second president of the US wrote “ Our Constitution was made for a holy and religious people, it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other “

I could literally write pages on this topic.

A government law stating that something is “ illegal “ or “ legal “ implies nothing about its moral ramifications - It just implies this is what the government has determined. Slavery was once legal, What occurred in Nazi Germany was once legal, abortion is currently legal, ' gay marriage ' is currently legal, and all of them are immoral.

I know what you asserted before about God – which doesn't amount to a hill of beans without an argument to support it. Our government legislators and judges do write and interpret the laws, but they are bound by an oath of office to the US Constitution – which are bylaws to enforce our Declaration of Independence mission statement and Charter, which says that our rights are * God given * , unalienable, and guarantee a right to * LIFE * , liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You're free to deny the reality of God as a higher power over legislators as stated in our founding documents, but what you can't do is defend that position with evidence and an argument, because this is precisely what our founding documents state.

In regards to Red Herrings. You've committed one Red Herring after another in this conversation. It started by questioning a single term in my meme about murder in a conversation about the NRA, it then went to diverging from talking about what qualifies murder to how our country operates, ( and yes that is a Red Herring, because how a country operates is an entirely separate issue from what qualifies terms used within that society) Lastly, you then you wanted to diverge and talk about speeding limits.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"A government law stating that something is “ illegal “ or “ legal “ implies nothing about its moral ramifications - It just implies this is what the government has determined. Slavery was once legal, What occurred in Nazi Germany was once legal, abortion is currently legal, ' gay marriage ' is currently legal, and all of them are immoral. "

Sadly, being Christian is also legal. "Straight marriage" is also legal.

Obviously, the best method of turning liberals into gay-haters is to put Nazi Germany and gay marriage in the same line of context, especially since Hitler never put homosexuals into his camps; oh no.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
My worldview can account for morality. Morality is how humans interact with and treat each other, for good or ill. Humans are social creatures. We operate best when we cooperate and work together for the mutual benefit of society. If someone does something that harms people or society, that is considered immoral. If I stab someone to death, that harms them and is immoral. If I help an old lady carry her groceries home, that benefits her and is considered moral. It's not rocket science, and your god doesn't even factor into the equation. The fact that people who don't believe in your god still have morals and values means that you don't have to believe in god to be a good person.

If you're saying morality can only come from god, then that would mean that the rules laid down in the Bible should be followed by everyone, everywhere, at all times. Do you believe that?

Also, gay marriage being immoral is your opinion.
reply
0 ups, 3 replies
No it can't account for morality. How humans “ interact with and treat each other “ whether“ for good or ill “ says nothing of how you determine the assignment of these value terms to a given behavior. You basically tried to qualify the value term morality with other value terms “ good or ill “

Morality equaling us working together for the mutual benefit of society is another attempt to validate a value term with a value term. What constitutes the “ benefit “ of society has a vastly different meaning for an atheist than it does a Christian, as our current conversation & the cultural divide in the USA will attest.

That humans “ cooperate “ says nothing about that cooperation being “ good or ill “ behavior. It just says this is your preference. It also says nothing of the desired goals they're cooperating to achieve being moral or not.

You then try to qualify morality as that which “ harms society “ which is another term your world view can not qualify. I would call chopping up babies in their mother's wombs & sucking them out with a vacuum cleaner, doing great harm to the baby. Not to mention the negative ramification to the mother, which has more than been proven.

If you “ stab someone to death “ for no reason that would be immoral, but your world view can not produce an objective moral standard to justify that term. You as an atheist can call it immoral, & you'd be right, but with no reference point for morality you can't qualify the term & adding further value terms does not help you in this dilemma.

People who don't believe in God do have morals & values, but that says nothing of those morals & values being legitimate or justified, and you've done nothing to argue that they are.

Also, Like most atheists I've engaged on this topic, you seem to be conflating two separate issues here. I never claimed atheists can't be good people, many may be more moral a person than I am. However, they would have no means by which to qualify the term “ good “ to know it. They would simply be expressing an arbitrary preference.

“ Should “ all people at all times follow the bible? Yes, at least the moral applications which apply to modern new testament believers. Can they follow them perfectly? No, which is what makes the grace of God necessary.

That homosexuality is immoral is a fact. That your world view & epistemology can not produce an objective standard to determine that, makes it no less true.
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
"What constitutes the “benefit“ of society has a vastly different meaning for an atheist than it does a Christian."

Obviously not, since both atheists and Christians in our society are working toward what is in society's best interests (broadly speaking). We both agree that stealing someone's wallet is morally wrong, giving a sick person medicine is morally good, etc.

"That humans “cooperate“ says nothing about that cooperation being “good or ill “behavior. It just says this is your preference. It also says nothing of the desired goals they're cooperating to achieve being moral or not."

The desired goal is to have a society that functions as smoothly as possible, which, again, both atheists and Christians are generally in support of.

"You then try to qualify morality as that which harms society which is another term your world view can not qualify."

Yes, my worldview can qualify that term. If something results in widespread harm, that is morally bad. Harm would include things like murder, stealing, intentionally causing pain and suffering, etc.

"...chopping up babies in their mother's wombs & sucking them out with a vacuum cleaner..."

That's not even an accurate description of what happens. And I would say that in some instances of severe, terminal birth defects, terminating the pregnancy is the moral thing to do.

"If you stab someone to death for no reason that would be immoral, but your world view can not produce an objective moral standard to justify that term."

I never said morality was objective.

"People who don't believe in God do have morals & values, but that says nothing of those morals & values being legitimate or justified"

The fact that I don't believe in God, yet have a standard of morality which seeks to benefit society does indeed show that my morality is legitimate and justified.
2 ups
"However, they would have no means by which to qualify the term “good" to know it. They would simply be expressing an arbitrary preference."

So what if morality is arbitrary? If enough people have an arbitrary morality which is in general agreement, then society can still benefit.

“ Should “ all people at all times follow the bible? Yes, at least the moral applications which apply to modern new testament believers."

So which laws should be followed and which ones can be ignored? And if morality is objective, why would god give one set of rules to ancient Israel and not give those same rules to everyone else?

"That homosexuality is immoral is a fact."

Where is your proof that two people of the same sex being in a relationship together objectively harms society?
0 ups
“Obviously not, since both atheists and Christians in our society are working toward what is in society's best interests (broadly speaking). We both agree that stealing someone's wallet is morally wrong, giving a sick person medicine is morally good, etc.”

Obviously it does. Christians & atheists aren't working towards what's in society's best interest, but that depends on your definition of “Christians” & “best interests” . That a Christian or atheist may agree on a single issue that theft is immoral doesn't counter argue that the atheist in this scenario can't justify the term immoral.

“The desired goal is to have a society that functions as smoothly as possible, which, again, both atheists and Christians are generally in support of”

A society which “functions as smoothly as possible” equaling morality is begging the question. A moral position may mean -For a time- that tumultuous actions or confrontations that lead to them take place – Not that you do what is going to lead enhance a “smoothly“ running society – which in many cases – would in fact be immoral.

“Yes, my worldview can qualify that term. If something results in widespread harm, that is morally bad. Harm would include things like murder, stealing, intentionally causing pain and suffering, etc.“

No it can't & once again you use circular logic by appealing to other value terms. What an atheist & Christian sees as “harm” are two separate issues. Christians have a standard to qualify the term, atheists do not. That they may agree on one issue doesn't counter that atheists can't justify their position – morally speaking.

“ That's not even an accurate description of what happens. “

Ok. Which method do you prefer? Burning them in saline solution? The needle in the back of the head? The pliers that rips limbs from the womb one at a time? RU 486? All of them produce a dead baby or enable irresponsible & immoral sexual behavior.

'” And I would say that in some instances of severe, terminal birth defects, terminating the pregnancy is the moral thing to do. “

These instances account for a mere 5% of all abortions. Most are had for convenience sake. & who gets to decide the standard to measure the quality of life for terminating a pregnancy? Atheists – most of whom – think abortions for convenience are fine?

“ I never said morality was objective. “

I didn't say you did. You apparently missed the point here.
0 ups
“ The fact that I don't believe in God, yet have a standard of morality which seeks to benefit society does indeed show that my morality is legitimate and justified. “

You haven't produced any objective standard or argument by which to qualify the value terms you have consistently used to try to justify other terms. You've just made assumptions.

“ So what if morality is arbitrary? If enough people have an arbitrary morality which is in general agreement, then society can still benefit. “

This statement alone not only demonstrates that you are an irrational & morally depraved individual, but forfeits this debate. If morality is arbitrary, What Hitler, Stalin, & Mao Zedong did in starving &/or murdering 100 million people is perfectly fine. & molesting & murdering children for the fun of it is perfectly fine.

“ So which laws should be followed and which ones can be ignored? “

I already told you. Those which apply to modern new testament believers. Did you want to have a bible study about it? We can.

“ And if morality is objective, why would god give one set of rules to ancient Israel and not give those same rules to everyone else? “

You're confusing objective with absolute. The rules in the old testament are old covenant, the rules in the new are what apply to modern new testament believers. The civil & ceremonial laws no longer apply for the same reason seat belt laws didn't exist in ancient Israel.

“ Where is your proof that two people of the same sex being in a relationship together objectively harms society? “

A couple points in response to this. Fist: Just as every other time you've used this term – your world view can't qualify the term “ harms “ it can only appeal to mere humanistic values & a limited world view & epistemology.

Second: 60 to 70% of all new AIDS cases in North America are directly attributable to homosexual behavior - in spite of them making up a mere 3% of the population, Says the Center for Disease, Control & Prevention.

Third: Even if the destructive effects of homosexuality listed above didn't exist – Homosexual behavior would still be wrong – & even if I couldn't provide “proof “ that homosexuality “ harms “ society – It would still not offer an argument to justify the position that your subjective, humanistic view points of “ harms “ equals a moral position. It would just be an assumption
reply
1 up, 2 replies
What is your standard for qualifying the term "harm"?

"Which method do you prefer?"

I prefer the method that reduces as much as possible any possible pain.

"These instances account for a mere 5% of all abortions."

But they still account for some.

"Most are had for convenience sake."

Proof?

"Atheists – most of whom – think abortions for convenience are fine?"

And you know this how?

"You haven't produced any objective standard or argument by which to qualify the value terms you have consistently used to try to justify other terms. You've just made assumptions."

I was working under the assumption that you understood what these words mean; words like benefit, harm, etc.

"This statement alone not only demonstrates that you are an irrational & morally depraved individual, but forfeits this debate. If morality is arbitrary, What Hitler, Stalin, & Mao Zedong did in starving &/or murdering 100 million people is perfectly fine. & molesting & murdering children for the fun of it is perfectly fine."

You replied to the first sentence and completely ignored the second one. My second sentence said "If enough people have an arbitrary morality which is in general agreement, then society can still benefit." The things done by Hitler, Stalin and Mao did not benefit their respective societies. Molesting and murdering children for fun does not benefit society.

"I already told you. Those which apply to modern new testament believers."

So that means slavery is still okay, since the New Testament never prohibited it.

"You're confusing objective with absolute."

Then please explain the difference.

"The rules in the old testament are old covenant, the rules in the new are what apply to modern new testament believers."

So which rules apply to Jews today? Which rules apply to non-Christians? Also, back to original question: why would god give one set of rules to ancient Israel and not give those same rules to everyone else?
0 ups
Part 1A “What is your standard for qualifying the term "harm"?”

The word of God -The bible.

“I prefer the method that reduces as much as possible any possible pain.“

So if Hitler committed genocide against the Jews with a less painful method – That would've made what Hitler called “The Final Solution“ moral? BTW, Most of these abortion procedures have more than proven to cause pain to babies being aborted.

“But they still account for some.”

Which still doesn't argue for it being legal for most – which is what abortion advocates attempt to do with their consistent bait & switch methods. .

“ Proof? “

According to the pro-abortion rights Alan Guttmacher Institute 94% of all abortions occur for “social reasons” (that is to say that the child is unwanted or inconvenient) rather than medical reasons or sexual assault as the primary argument for abortions. https://www.guttmacher.org/international/abortion

“And you know this how?“

By statistics of atheists supporting progressive politicians & their policies. This is not to say no atheists are against abortion, but most are for it. Most are also for homosexuality. This is a verifiable fact. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/

“ I was working under the assumption that you understood what these words mean; words like benefit, harm, etc. “

What a word may “mean“ & what the implications of that meaning is within a given world view are different issues – As the word “harm“ & the immoral positions you have consistently supported & jettisoned from the application of this word –clearly attest.

To clarify. I'm telling you abortion & homosexuality are absolutely “harmful“ to those practicing these immoral behaviors or participating in them, & that “harm“ goes far beyond mere humanistic harm, but also spiritual & psychological harm your world view does not afford you.

“ You replied to the first sentence and completely ignored the second one.“

I ignored it with good reason - because it's irrelevant.

“My second sentence said "If enough people have an arbitrary morality which is in general agreement, then society can still benefit.”

I know what it said, which is an irrational unsupported assertion. Either you fail to understand the term “arbitrary“ you're irrational enough to believe this, or some other possibility I haven't considered.

(Continued)
0 ups
Part 1B. “The things done by Hitler, Stalin and Mao did not benefit their respective societies“

According to most in Nazi Germany who supported Hitler & were in “ general agreement“ - genocide of the Jews would benefit society – Just as atheists like you think subjectively that abortion & homosexuality benefits society. You see how “subjective“ and/or “arbitrary morality“ works taken to it's logical conclusion?

“ Molesting and murdering children for fun does not benefit society. “

Which if true is completely irrelevant, because that morality equals the “benefit“ of society is an assumption anyways. I'd agree that morality *ultimately* will benefit society, but what that looks like within my world view & yours are entirely different issues. What that looks like in a progressive world view is rampant homosexuality, abortion on demand, & 50 different genders.

“ So that means slavery is still okay, since the New Testament never prohibited it. “

It does prohibit it as it was known in the US slave trade, (Exodus 21:16) but even if it didn't. This is what's known in logic as an argument from silence fallacy.

“Then please explain the difference.“

Objective means not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

Absolute means a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things. e.g. Time, culture, societal convention, etc..

“So which rules apply to Jews today?“

All those with moral application. However, those laws today only serve to curse them. Before Christ they were keeping them while holding out for the future promise of the messiah. They rejected that promise – So the law became a curse to them.

“ Which rules apply to non-Christians? “

All those with moral application, but like the Jews, those laws only serve to curse them unless God grants unbelievers repentance.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
(continued)

"Just as every other time you've used this term – your world view can't qualify the term “harms“ it can only appeal to mere humanistic values & a limited world view & epistemology."

What proof do you have that your worldview is superior to others?

I wasn't asking about AIDS cases. I was asking about "two people of the same sex being in a relationship together". Last time I checked, monogamous couples don't spread disease. People who sleep around spread disease, whether gay or straight.

As for your third point: you're basically saying that even if you can't prove I'm wrong, I'm still wrong?

It sounds to me like you're trying to control the debate by controlling the definitions of words. Every time I use words with known, clear definitions, you say that my worldview can not justify or qualify those words. In essence, you're saying my position cannot be defended because I'm using words which you claim I supposedly can't be using.
0 ups
Part 2 A. “What proof do you have that your worldview is superior to others?”

There is a ton of proof that it's superior. It accounts for and answers the most pressing questions that the greatest philosophical thinkers in history and no other world view can answer. Here is an expounding upon that topic. http://gloryfocus.com/2015/05/14/the-superiority-of-the-christian-worldview/

“ I wasn't asking about AIDS cases. “

You asked how homosexual behavior harms society. I gave an illustration of that “harm“ per your humanistic understanding of it.

I know what you asked – & since there is no such thing as a homosexual “relationship“ in the romantic context, it was rightfully ignored. We have world views clashing here again.

“ Last time I checked, monogamous couples don't spread disease. People who sleep around spread disease, whether gay or straight. “

Unfortunately that describes few to no homosexual relations. The CDC points this out. and also points to what it describes as other “sexually risky“ behavior by homosexuals, which includes anal sex. It also said health warning guidelines among homosexuals who contracted AIDS was actually quite high- but had no impact in them curbing risky sexual activity - demonstrating that this is an addictive perversion and not love. These are peversions – not “ loving relationships “

“ As for your third point: you're basically saying that even if you can't prove I'm wrong, I'm still wrong? “

I don't have a clue where you're getting this from and I”m completely baffled. You'll have to expound upon it.

“ It sounds to me like you're trying to control the debate by controlling the definitions of words.”

I haven't tried to control anything – What I have done is pointed out your circular reasoning and attempts to qualify value terms using other value terms – and then you fail to qualify the definitions of those terms * within * your naturalistic world view.

“ Every time I use words with known, clear definitions, you say that my worldview can not justify or qualify those words.”

That's correct. & I have more than explained exactly what I mean by that. I have argued abortion and homosexual behavior is harmful, you have claimed it's not. This is an example of what I mean.

“ In essence, you're saying my position cannot be defended because I'm using words which you claim I supposedly can't be using. “

That's not at all what I'm saying.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
As you can see, in this post I use the phrase “ That says nothing of “ and “ your world view can't qualify the term “ quite a bit here.

This is because, Just like atheist, Sam Harris in his debate with Christian, William Lane Craig on morality, your entire post amounts to one big series of question begging assumptions and attempts to justify value terms and judgments with other terms which require further justification, running you into an infinite regress scenario.

This is precisely why axiomatic foundations and proper presuppositions are necessary, and quite frankly, the atheist world view has none..

I would highly advise the debate between Christian, William Lane Craig and Atheist, Same Harris. Sam Harris tried to argue the same thing you are here, that morality equals what benefits society or cause human flourishing and really had his can handed to him by Craig,who was quick to point out his assumptions.

I also added a video to clear up and expound upon your conflation of Atheist having morals with them being able to justify them. Which are two separate topics. If you're interested that is.

Morality--Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural? William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq1QjXe3IYQ

Can you be good without God? The moral argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU
reply
1 up
Yes, I will watch that debate when I have the chance. Thank you.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
If arbitrary rules are irrational, then that would make speed limits irrational, even though they are in fact pretty rational
reply
0 ups, 4 replies
No, as a matter of fact it wouldn't, because those aren't arbitrary. They're laws determined by characteristics and/or conditions which merit the application of a guideline. Those characteristics vary from road to road, weather condition to weather condition.
reply
2 ups
Part 1

You said the Bible is your standard for qualifying the term "harm". That tells me nothing. Where, specifically, in the Bible does it define what harm is?

"So if Hitler committed genocide against the Jews with a less painful method – That would've made what Hitler called “The Final Solution“ moral?"

No, because genocide is still genocide, whether it's performed painfully or not.

"This is not to say no atheists are against abortion, but most are for it. Most are also for homosexuality. This is a verifiable fact. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/"

I'm glad to hear that :)

“ I was working under the assumption that you understood what these words mean; words like benefit, harm, etc. “

"To clarify. I'm telling you abortion & homosexuality are absolutely “harmful“ to those practicing these immoral behaviors or participating in them, & that “harm“ goes far beyond mere humanistic harm, but also spiritual & psychological harm your world view does not afford you."

You are telling me that, this is true. I just don't believe you have demonstrated that that is the case.

Please explain how it is irrational to claim that society can benefit from enough people having an arbitrary morality which is in general agreement. Because from what I see, no society on Earth has 100% agreement on moral issues. Yet societies still thrive despite this. And yes, I know what arbitrary means. If you have 100 people rowing a large boat, and 95 of them are all rowing east, and the other 5 are rowing west, the boat will still travel east, albeit with a little difficulty.

"According to most in Nazi Germany who supported Hitler & were in “general agreement“ - genocide of the Jews would benefit society"

And that viewpoint was irrational and clearly harmed their country, because they killed many people who were contributing members of society.

"Just as atheists like you think subjectively that abortion & homosexuality benefits society."

I never said homosexuality benefits society, but I don't believe it harms society either, like you are claiming. I will say that committed homosexual relationships have the same benefits to the individual that committed heterosexual relationships have, which in turn does generally benefit society.
reply
2 ups
Part 2

"You see how “subjective“ and/or “arbitrary morality“ works taken to it's logical conclusion?"

Only when it is misapplied. Also, subjective morality having potentially negative consequences doesn't disprove that it is real.

"...that morality equals the “benefit“ of society is an assumption anyways."

If morality doesn't equal the benefit of society, then what purpose does it even serve?

"What that looks like in a progressive world view is rampant homosexuality, abortion on demand, & 50 different genders."

Lol. Nice strawmen. "Rampant homosexuality" is a nonsensical term meant to frighten people. "Abortion on demand" is another absurd term used to delegitimize abortion. That's like saying "prayer on demand" or "dental checkups on demand". Also, I don't think the idea of 50+ genders is as widely held as people claim.

Exodus 21:16 only prohibits kidnapping people and selling them into slavery. Also, that verse may possibly refer only to stealing fellow Hebrews, I'm not sure. But buying and selling slaves overall was not prohibited, as other verses clearly demonstrate. Just a few verses later, in 21:20-21, it says you can beat your slaves and you won't be punished, as long as they don't die right away, "for he is his money" (KJV). So according to the Bible, it's perfectly acceptable to own another human being as property. Since you said that Exodus 21:16 still applies today, that would mean the other verses in that chapter should also apply today. So according to you and your worldview, it's perfectly morally acceptable to:

-sell your daughter into slavery (which would allow her to be **ped by her master, since female slaves could not say no) (21:7)
-have two wives (21:10)
-kill people who hit their parents (21:15)
-kill people who curse their parents (21:17)
reply
2 ups
Part 3

And that's just Exodus chapter 21. Other places in the Old Testament are full of commands which are disgusting and morally reprehensible by modern societal standards. If a girl isn't a virgin on her wedding night, she should be stoned to death (Deut 22:13-21). False prophets should be put to death (Deut 13:1-5). Anyone (even from your own family) who tries to get you to worship other gods should be stoned to death (Deut 13:6-11). If someone in your town tries to get you to worship other gods, you should kill everyone in the city and burn it to the ground, destroying it completely (Deut 13:12-17). So much for freedom of religion. Any god who commands these things is a wretch. Your god is a filthy beast, wholly undeserving of my worship and adoration.

You just described objective and absolute as being essentially synonymous. According to you, objective means not influenced by personal opinions or feelings, and absolute means regarded as universally valid or unrelated to other things. Those are essentially the same thing:

It is objectively true that Australia is larger than Texas.
It is absolutely true that Australia is larger than Texas.

So all laws with moral application still apply to Jews today? That would include many of the things in the Old Testament which are no longer acceptable or appropriate in modern Western society (such as owning slaves).

Of course you would say that the Jews rejected Jesus as messiah. Even though he didn't do what the messiah was supposed to do, like defeat the enemies of the Jews and set up a kingdom on Earth, reigning from Jerusalem on the throne of David.

"There is a ton of proof that it's superior. It accounts for and answers the most pressing questions that the greatest philosophical thinkers in history and no other world view can answer."

Just because your worldview answers questions doesn't mean it answers them correctly. What time is it? Penguin. See, I answered the question. Where did the universe come from? God made it. See, I answered the question.

"Here is an expounding upon that topic. http://gloryfocus.com/2015/05/14/the-superiority-of-the-christian-worldview/"

As I expected, it was riddled with logical fallacies.

"You asked how homosexual behavior harms society."

Actually, I asked how homosexual *relationships* harm society, and you provided no evidence that they do.
reply
2 ups
Part 4

"I know what you asked – & since there is no such thing as a homosexual “relationship“ in the romantic context, it was rightfully ignored."

At this point you're just denying reality. Romantic homosexual relationships do in fact exist; many of them.

"Unfortunately that describes few to no homosexual relations."

It seems your strategy is to avoid dealing with certain issues by convincing yourself that they don't exist. After all, if you can deny that something exists, you don't have to address it. The fact is, denying the existence of monogamous homosexual relationships not only sounds absurd and detached from reality, it is demonstrably false. There are many, many homosexual relationships, romantic relationships, and yes, even marriages, which are completely monogamous. I expect you will deny that gay marriage is even a thing. That's okay, it doesn't change the fact that it is real, and completely legally binding. You want to convince yourself that all gay people are filthy, disgusting perverts who do nothing but sleep around and spread disease and who want to destroy all that is good and right in society, and attack loving, devout, God-fearing Christians like yourself. It certainly makes them easier to hate if you can convince yourself of these absurdities and remove their humanness. Just like what the Nazis did with Jews, and racist people in the South did with black people.

And again, high risk sexual behavior exists among people who are gay and also people who are straight.

You said "Even if the destructive effects of homosexuality listed above didn't exist – Homosexual behavior would still be wrong – & even if I couldn't provide “proof “ that homosexuality “harms“ society – It would still not offer an argument to justify the position that your subjective, humanistic view points of “harms“ equals a moral position."

It sounds to me like you're saying that even if there were no evidence that homosexuality was harmful, it would still be bad. Well if you can't prove it's harmful, then how is it bad?

"That's correct. & I have more than explained exactly what I mean by that. I have argued abortion and homosexual behavior is harmful, you have claimed it's not. This is an example of what I mean."

So we agree on what the word "harm" actually means, we just disagree on the things to which it would apply. Perhaps you could explain what you mean when you say my worldview "cannot qualify" these terms.
reply
5 ups
reply
19 ups, 4 replies
Facebook removed this picture for 'violating community stndards on hate speech'. It would appear that facebook is actively supporting gun control & censorship of HISTORICAL FACT. Politicians prefer unarmed peasants!
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Facebook is heavily biased against conservative views and/or history and censors them regularly.. I am currently on day 4 of a 30 day suspension of my account for posting something that " violates Facebook policies "

I've noticed that they are very sensitive and will ban you without hesitation over material criticizing the LGBT movement, gun control, Muslims or any other ethnic group, like Native Americans. You can simply quote historical facts such as you are here and they'll remove your post and ban you if it's repeated.

They also unpublished my political page permanently.
reply
0 ups
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I'm on ban for a meme I made and posted 8 months ago!
Comparing Hitler to trump is ok, but comparing Hitler to Democratic liberals today NOPE!
YOU CANT POST THAT!
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Trump*, Liberals*, CAN’T*
reply
0 ups
Democrats is the name of the party, not liberals, therefore "liberals" need not be capitalized.
reply
0 ups
Lol are you serious?
reply
0 ups
Nice clickbait meme.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Yeah, Jews with handguns would have really been able to hold off the Wehrmacht and SS divisions. Does anyone in America actually get an education these days? The celebration of ignorance in America is truly terrifying.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
First: Even if true is a completely irrelevant Red Herring fallacy and grounded in complete, ignorance of history - which has more than demonstrated that individuals with inferior munitions and numbers have overcome in battle against all odds. I can give several example of this off the top of my head - One being portrayed in the Mel Gibson movie " We Were Soldiers " portraying the real life account of the Battle of Ia Drang.

Second:. Assuming what you say is true about them only owning hand guns. I would rather die fighting with a hand gun for my freedom than dying of starvation in one of Stalin's gulags or burning in one of Hitler's gas ovens, but of course I value my freedom and am not willing to forfeit it for government handouts and promises of greener pastures than never come.

Third: In a truly free society where gun ownership is not restricted, but rather the responsible use of is encouraged ( Which the NRA spends MOST of their money doing with training ) They wouldn't only have had hand guns.
reply
0 ups
lol. I rest my case
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Jews with hand guns would have been able to take a few nazis down with them. The ability and means to resist and fail is still a better option than allowing the deaths of millions go unanswered. I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
reply
0 ups
But Democrats just want to take away assault rifles, not handguns.
reply
0 ups
Yes of course, Jews were privy to the Final Solution Plan as the Nazis shared it with them so they all knew what was going to happen. History needs to be taught in American schools because obviously it is not currently.
reply
14 ups, 3 replies
i.imgflip.com/25a56j.jpg (click to show)
There is a broken criminal justice and mental health system. More "gun control" won't stop anyone but law abiding citizens from guns. I think that is what they want.
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
You are absolutely right. I made a Picard meme a few days ago saying exactly that.
Politicians don't give a dusty rats ass about saving lives. They just want to disarm every American citizen.
reply
9 ups, 2 replies
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
laonsite is the dim bulb that still doesn't comprehend that your odds of being shot by those in the US - and I own one where he does not - are less than your odds of being struck by lightning, killing yourself on a staircase, or drowning in a pool.

I never liked the word before since I used to lean that way, but it's finally starting to grow on me - libtards.

They want to get rid of the potential threat to power stuff easily. THEN they claim hunting rifles are sniper rifles. THEN they claim, oops, it was handguns all along since that's what most gun homicides actually happen with.

You have to be really dense not to see it.

At some point you have to stop running with the frightened herd and starting to question for yourself.
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up, 2 replies
reply
1 up
And less people, less guns, and were in the process of breaking off from British control. The times they are a'changing...
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
No, that would be those that do not grasp that the militia is the people, specifically able-bodied males, who may be called to service. Furthermore, the amendment specifically - just as with others like the right to free speech etc - provides that the right is the right of the PEOPLE.

Go search up the excellent article "Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment." It won't take you ten minutes. Read it.

At some point you're going to have to realize you're wrong, just as years ago I had the honesty to do too.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
If you can't be bothered knowing basic, simple, elemental con law, there's little point. Back to your gaming.
reply
0 ups
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Nothing gives some people a bigger hard on than telling the government to take away our freedoms. I told you the dangers of disarming Americans, I made a meme about it, and you come back determined more than ever to ban guns.
The problem with some liberals like you is that you are too damn emotional for your own good. You all do not think logically, you just make judgments based on emotions. Oh you might can convince this new generation of tide-pod eating nitwits that you all are logical, but you will never change facts.

The AR guns is not for hunting. They are for defending everything you hold dear in the event of a foreign invasion, a totalitarian takeover, an economic collapse, etc. They are here so you may defend yourself and those you care for against a threat. Whatever scenario you want to dream up.

Have history not gave us enough examples of what armed people do to unarmed people? The Killing Fields of Cambodia, Stalin's atrocities, The Holocaust-to name a few. How many lives have been lost throughout history because a ruling power had control over an unarmed population? People put down the KKK and Neo Nazis and every racist person is called a Nazi. But I believe that to many people the atrocities committed by the true Nazis is forgotten. No one realizes or cares that Hitler disarmed the countries he took over?! And is it any question as to why he would do so? To keep the populations under control of course!
Because you bleeding hearts are led by emotion I am a bit surprised that the atrocities committed by the Third Reich alone would not make you be die hard supporters of the 2nd Amendment. The school shooting was bad. It should not have happened. The law agencies failed us that time, and other times. Their inadequacies resulted in the death of 17 people. Why are you all not protesting that? When a cop guns down a thug you all are tearing towns apart in rage but when the law enforcement's inadequacies causes the death of 17 people there is only silence on that part. Instead you hop on the fervently pressed gun control bandwagon! How quick the bought and paid for media was to start pushing the banning of guns. And you lapped it all up!

But that goes back to you not thinking logically. You are not capable of critical thinking because you let your emotions drive your judgment. There is nothing wrong with getting emotional at times, but it is dangerous to let it control you.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Yeah right, because you and your hillbilly mates with a few guns are strong enough to defeat the US Military is the government ever decided to turn against you.... the poisoned water wasn't just in Flint, it seems to have spread all over the country.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
I don't understand you people. My argument is that atrocities like the Third Reich, Killing Fields of Cambodia, and Stalin's atrocities would be significantly harder to pull off if the people they was ruling had been armed.
And you know I'm right. That is why you opted to insult me with the poisoned water :)

Your argument is the same as Laonsite used once. "Because the US and other governments have drones it is suicide to think about going up against them."

Well that is a cowardly copout! Guns like the AK and the AR is the bread and butter of guerilla warfare. Why was Vietnam so difficult? Why is the Middle Eastern terrorists such a strong force after years of fighting? We have drones and WMDs! Why could we just not have steam rolled them the way you are implying would happen to Americans.

It isn't about defeating the US military. If such a tyrannical government was to take it's place, it would no longer be the US. However that tyrannical force takes over, either by military force or political force, it would not be the US.

So supporting the 2nd Amendment and willing to go down fighting like a devil-dog for my country makes me a hillbilly? Well atleast I'm not a sissy boy who can't figure out what gender I am all the while wanting to hand over my rights and freedoms. Freedoms that men and women have died to protect! Their sacrifices doesn't matter to this new generation of self serving scum!
reply
1 up, 2 replies
So you are afraid of the government taking away your rights, but you continually support increasing the military's budget? Do you find it at all odd that you are strengthening the one part of the government that could actually stage a giant coup?

I honestly think you dream of some goverment take over so you can live out a perverted fantasy of being in some group of guerilla warriors. It's odd that gun toting "patriots" have such problems with Islamic terrorists. I look at the videos they post and can only tell the different between them by their headwear: Confederate flag hats for one and turbans for the other.
reply
0 ups
The replies just keep getting better and better.

Yes. I whole heartedly support increasing the military. Partly because I want to join and I think if they increase the amount of troops I would have a better chance of joining. Plus you can't be a super power with a weak military. We defend numerous foreign countries and provide aid to many. We could do more with a larger military.

"Do you find it at all odd that you are strengthening the one part of the government that could actually stage a giant coup?"

Is that how you feel? If so why do you not support the 2nd Amendment?

Others have referred to my argument as want guns to fight against the US government. That is a misunderstanding of what I mean so let me clear up any misconceptions.
I have no fear of our soldiers going against all they stand for and supporting a tyrannical takeover. Unless some crazy Star Wars scenario plays out - the infamous dark lord tyrant implanting a micro chip into the soldiers that brainwashes them and takes over their minds and bodies - there is no chance of our soldiers supporting tyranny. Of course with the advances of technology such a device could be made. It's not impossible, but I say it's very unlikely. Even if there was such a device made it could definitely be un-made >:)

Back to the misunderstanding. If such a tyrannical government took over, our US government would cease to exist. Now that is not saying there is zero politicians with ambitions and dark agendas for the US. Or that an aspiring Hitler wanna be isn't out somewhere waiting for his turn in office. However this totalitarian government would come to be, either by political force or military force, the US government would be no more.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Your last paragraph contributed zero to the argument for pro-guns or anti-guns. So because I believe people should have the right to be prepared for a "worst case scenario" you accuse me of having perverted dreams of joining a group of guerilla warriors?
By that logic I could say that if you lock your door at nights you have perverted dreams of a robber/rapist coming in and having his way with you.

I don't "tote" guns. I support the owning of them but I do not carry one with me all the time.

When you have schoolmates who was killed in Afghanistan fighting Islamic terrorists why would you not have a problem with them? Am I supposed to worship the ground they walk on and think they are the best people in the world. Maybe I missed your point, it sounds like you are bashing people who don't like Islamic terrorists. Which sounds like you are defending Islamic terrorists.

So these guerilla groups you are referring to are Confederates? And you think that is what I want to join???

Okay, I can take most insults with a good humor. But not when I am connected with traitors like confederates! You don't know a damn thing about me. I have no love for the confederates. They committed treason against the US and they nearly destroyed this country. Do not ever believe that I want to be connected to such a group!
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Considering that the meme that sparked the conversation is a huge generalization, I'm not going to apologize for generalizing as well.

The US Military is vastly over-funded compared with any other country in the world; actually, I'll add a caveat to that: the US Military is currently over-funded, however it is possible that it will come in balance as Trump alienates every current ally the US has.

I have no love for terrorist, which is why I hate the NRA: The leaders of the NRA are domestic terrorists through their hijacking of the 2nd Amendment.

If you feel like you need assault weapons and high capacity magazines to prepare for a worst case scenario, then I'm not sure if there is any point in debating with you; but I'll make one last point. Unless you are in favor of civilians owning grenade launchers, sidewinder missiles, and dirty bombs, then we can both agree that there should be some set of restrictions on the types of weapons people should be allowed to own.
reply
0 ups
"If you feel like you need assault weapons and high capacity magazines to prepare for a worst case scenario, then I'm not sure if there is any point in debating with you."
I am not a gun guru and I know little about guns. To my knowledge the AR guns that are available to people like me are semi-autos. I would not call it an assault rifle. It would be interesting to hear a military instructor or someone who knows a lot more than me explain the difference. What you speak of sounds more like the M249. It is a light machine gun.

"Unless you are in favor of civilians owning grenade launchers, sidewinder missiles, and dirty bombs, then we can both agree that there should be some set of restrictions on the types of weapons people should be allowed to own."

Umm Well I thought those things were already banned. I am supporting the semi-auto AR style guns. I do not support the level of firepower that you are suggesting. All the protests are against the AR gun. That is the one I am defending.
We have good laws, but they have not been enforced. Someone made a meme about how the law failed and allowed these shootings to happen.

"The US Military is vastly over-funded compared with any other country in the world."
I read somewhere that several nations receive money to fund their militaries. But little of that money is actually used for their military and that those countries are pretty much piggy-backing off the protection of the US. I also read that our military is somewhat "depleted" and scattered across the globe. Something about the number of troops being as low as before WW2. You can't defend yourself and a whole bunch of others with few troops. But if what you say about cutting ties with allies is true, then I guess we won't have to worry about protecting them anymore.
reply
0 ups
"Trump alienates every current ally the US has."
If you are referring to wanting to change the nuke deal with Iran then I could care less. I don't trust Iran and that deal seemed like a big mistake to me. If you are referring to other countries then I would like to know more. As I know nothing on that subject except a little bit with Iran.

"I have no love for terrorist, which is why I hate the NRA: The leaders of the NRA are domestic terrorists through their hijacking of the 2nd Amendment."

That seems like a strong opinion, one I doubt I could change. So I am not going to try. I am not a member of the NRA and I know little about them anyways. All I am going to say is don't let your hatred for them make you want you to turn over your 2nd Amendment right.

"Considering that the meme that sparked the conversation is a huge generalization, I'm not going to apologize for generalizing as well."
Everyone generalizes sometimes. I generalize.
I wasn't wanting an apology. I just wanted to clear up some misunderstandings.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Hey, you have fun dying. Sorry I won't be able to make it to your funeral.

If you're an American, don't you support your country? Would you really turn it all into chaos, because "the gub'ment gonna gitcha?" (Which is paranoia at its finest) Our government IS corrupt, yes. But it'll never be a bloody ruthless tyranny. No matter how bad Donald wants to make it one.

The past happened. But the entire world has evolved, and the people using social media and the media itself is just too fast to report wrong-doing. You're talking about a time when things could go unchecked and unreported for LONG time.

Paranoid much? Get some psych meds.
reply
0 ups
I wonder how many more boneheads are going to come along accusing me of wanting guns to fight our own government!

Clearly you did not read my other memes. You are possibly the fourth person within two comments of mine that got this wrong.

You keep saying our government. Let me be very clear. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT OUR GOVERNMENT!!!

"Our government IS corrupt, yes. But it'll never be a bloody ruthless tyranny."
I am not sure about the corrupt part, sure we have some crooked politicians, but as a whole our government is the best one out there. And yes, I agree, our government will never become a blood thirsty totalitarian power.

"But that is partly why you want guns right? In case of a tyrannical takeover."

That is one of many scenarios one could use, yes. But again, let me be clear. If such a tyrannical government took over, our US government would cease to exist. However this totalitarian government would come to be, either by political force or military force, the US government would be no more. In order for a tyrannical force to take over, they would first have to destroy everything our current government stands for.

(Seriously the fourth or fifth time I had to clarify that. How do people not realize that a tyrannical takeover would no longer be our government?)
reply
0 ups
"The past happened. But the entire world has evolved, and the people using social media and the media itself is just too fast to report wrong-doing. You're talking about a time when things could go unchecked and unreported for LONG time."

Do not think the world is safe from another Hitler.
And the majority of people are too busy going about their daily lives to notice subtle changes. And others are too concerned with guys not being able to use the ladies bathroom to notice if their rights are being slowly taken away.

But why does a corrupt politician have to slowly take rights away when this new generation is practically begging them to take away their freedoms!

"Paranoid much? Get some psych meds."
I will need psych meds if I have to clarify to another wise-guy making it out like I want guns to go defend against our government. Or if our government becomes tyrannical.

"Sorry I won't be able to make it to your funeral."
I won't hold it against you XD
reply
1 up, 1 reply
But why do you need an AK-47? Why do you need an AR-15? Why do you need an M16? What purpose does an assault rifle have other than to kill the maximum amount of human beings possible. Assault rifles were made for military use, and military use only. You want a handgun? That’s great! I myself own a handgun. But you don’t need an assault rifle.
reply
0 ups
The reason why law abiding citizens need ARs and AKs is because those are the weapons that the criminals have and they are not going to "give up" or "turn in" their weapons new laws/bans be damned. So we need the same type of fire power to protect ourselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhKCiY-lu0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUUKDv85DSY
reply
1 up
In almost every shooting in this country, big or small, the shooter/shooters purchased their weapon/weapons legally.
reply
[deleted]
11 ups, 2 replies
Because according to some people, it's perfectly fine if a Demorat does something evil but wrong and evil when everyone else[Republicans, Independents etc.] do it. It's the classic liberal double standard. I'll do what I want but here's a whole list of shit you can and can't do.
reply
3 ups
That sounds like some conservatives I know, too
reply
0 ups
It's funny you say that, because I've researched political science and discovered that, ideologically, the modern-day Dem's platform would be a Reagan-era Republican, and current Republican is practically a hard-line fascist. So who's REALLY for America? I need my Independents like Bernie Sanders (who would have CRUSHED Trump) to step up for us, and win back control of this country. Both liberals AND hard-right, "alternative-facts" neocons are bad. You can't even pick a side. That's stupid.
reply
8 ups, 3 replies
I am outraged by the fact that no one seems to be concerned by the hundreds of children who are killed every day by trained medical professionals! Wake up America! When are we going to concentrate on the real problem?
reply
2 ups
He was the one who made me aware of that statement by Hillary in one of her speeches. And then she says she cares about lives and that is why she pushes for gun control.

It is easy to realize her hypocrisies.
reply
2 ups
Would you accept a ban on all guns for civilians if late term abortion was made illegal? I didn't think so, just trying to deflect the conversation with whataboutism.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
What's next extra extra late abortion? (Killing your offspring that's in high school) But it's "ok" because the democrats say you can do it.
reply
0 ups
Fetuses aren't legally alive! You can't “murder” something that’s not living!
reply
0 ups
How long before this comes true?
reply
7 ups
We did. We don't care if they were Republicans or Democrats or any Third Party. It's the LIVES that we care about
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
reply
6 ups
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
They're not allowed to disagree with NRA money. lol
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
Come on. It's one thing to disagree with their policies. It's another thing entirely to say that they want conservatives gunned down.

Are there some liberals who wouldn't be upset if conservatives are shot? Sure, but that number is small, I'm more than willing to bet. And don't forget that it works the other way, too. There are some conservatives who would be happy if liberals were shot. But I'm sure that number is small as well.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
I'm not talking about the left as a whole. I'm talking about the extreme leftists who advocate violence against their opposition. I see it every time someone on the right gets beat down by a deranged antifa group or gets shot up by a man who is a leftist, politically.

I probably worded it wrong, but there are those on both sides that act this way and I call them out on both sides.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
When your meme comment said "the left", I took that to mean "the left", as in the whole left, not the extreme fringe ones.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Like I said, I worded it wrong. And there are a lot of far extreme leftists in the media like CNN and MSNBC. There was little to no talk about gun control. And almost none of them came out and demanded we talk about amending the 2nd amendment.

If you're going to talk about it 24/7 when a massage shooting happens in a school, you better talk about it when a shooting happens when the targets are republicans and conservatives.

And there was a lot less talking when the church shooting in Texas happened. There was some, but not at length like we see now. Maybe they weren't too worried about Christians in a church as they are about kids in a school. Or perhaps they didn't talk about it as much because a law abiding citizen with an AR 15 fought back and thwarted more possible victims.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I agree that the media didn't really talk about gun control as much after the softball field shooting. I can't remember if they talked about it less, or not at all, but you're right when you point out that they didn't make an issue of it like they are now.

I would say that people on CNN are liberal, I might even say leftist, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they are far extreme leftists. Extreme leftists are like extreme rightists; they are the ones calling for actual violence and attacks against people.

As far as the Texas church shooting, the neighbor who had his own gun may have affected how they covered that part of the story, but keep in mind that by the time he sprang into action, the shooting inside the church was already over.
reply
0 ups
There is a lot of talk about that shooting at the church and the shooter very likely was going to another location to do another shooting. He has a lot more ammo and guns in his car, but when he was confronted he wasn't able to. He quite possibly save more lives. At the least, he took the shooter out and removed a very possible threat.
reply
4 ups
Motha f**kin right?
reply
3 ups
reply
5 ups
reply
3 ups
reply
10 ups
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-a-high-profile-shooting-occurs-and-1497463853-htmlstory.html
reply
2 ups
lol, jk. upvote!!
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Oh, this BS again. A, who says they didn't. B, this happened in 2017, and with a GOP controlled Congress and WH, how far would any discussion of gun control gone anyway? Apparently, Republicans think random mass shootings are just a fact of modern life like traffic jams and having to take out a home equity loan to go see a first run movie.
reply
0 ups
reply
3 ups
Same reason they don't talk about all kinds of shootings - lack of a sympathetic "victim". GOP politicians (who love guns).... Like the ironic/humourous human interest story that you end a news program with... Minus the human interest.

Just a guess...I can't PROVE anything...

i.imgflip.com/25ddee.gif (click to show)
reply
1 up
We're so sorry we complained after the nation's children got shot. Maybe we should keep our tongues in our mouths when your child is reported dead.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Wait, but... they did call for gun control after that shooting.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Nope. Dems said nothing, did nothing. Same thing happened when Rand Paul was attacked by his own neighbor.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
WTF does Rand Paul have to do with it? Rand's neighbor tackled him after Paul piled some brush up too close to his property when Paul was mowing and cleaning up his lawn. What, should Dems have proposed better federal regulations regarding lawn clippings, with the EPA being in charge of monitoring those regs? How about felony federal statues regarding lawn rage attacks? You're too funny.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
said nothing, did nothing. Paul's neighbors disputed the narrative of the attack happening over a lawncare dispute. When Democrats like Gabby giffords is shot at, its the crime of the century. When Republicans like Steve Scalise get shot at, crickets.Should morality be ignored when the victim is someone you disagree with or simply don't like?
reply
3 ups
You're wrong. The Scalise shooting WAS covered. Repeatedly. There was the initial story, follow-ups, and a final "he's back to work" story.

I'm sorry, but you're full of shit. You just want SO BAD to be the victim. You guys are the ones gerrymandering America, because you can't win any other way. You guys are the ones throwing temper tantrums that actually hurt the country, because a Black, moderate Democrat was the sitting President. You guys are the ones loading up on weapons, ammo, and building bunkers. Everybody else is mentally stable and just trying to navigate a modern, globalized world that you backwards goons just refuse to accept. (It already happened, so get over it.)
reply
1 up
When Steve Scalise returned to Congress after getting shot, every lawmaker on Capitol Hill - INCLUDING DEMOCRATS - gave him a standing ovation. After that shooting, every news outlet in the country - INCLUDING LIBERAL NEWS OUTLETS - was talking about it.
reply
2 ups
because those are the people preventing the gun control!
reply
0 ups
I did
reply
0 ups
Very good point!!!
reply
1 up
Wait a minute wait a minute. Why are there so many people commenting about abortion? Terminating a pregnancy is not the same thing as opening fire with an assault rifle in a school, or at a party, or on a baseball field. Fetuses aren't legally alive. Not allowing a fetus to develop and be birthed isn't murder. You can't kill something that's not alive!
reply
0 ups
my friend is going to get shot by the teachers, hes really bad and he isnt even american
reply
0 ups
Awesome point!
reply
0 ups
reply
9 ups
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-a-high-profile-shooting-occurs-and-1497463853-htmlstory.html
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/14/terminate-the-republican-party-followers-celebrate/&ved=2ahUKEwimzLD6idPZAhVN1mMKHaFSCQYQFjADegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3BdAHVvzfP_qe4X11QD4CZ&ampcf=1
Flip Settings
Creepy Condescending Wonka memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
SO YOU WANT GUN CONTROL AFTER A SCHOOL SHOOTING. TELL ME WHY YOU DIDN'T SAY THE SAME THING WHEN A MAN SHOT AT A BUNCH OF REPUBLICANS DURING A SOFTBALL GAME.
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back