Creepy Condescending Wonka

Upvoted

Seriously I’m starting to think politicians are taking advantage of this shooting

So who makes the money out of gun control if they have an agenda?

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.

LOL. I was thinking of that scene in the simpsons!

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.

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.....

YOU JUST DESCRIBED WHY WE NEED BACKGROUND CHECKS

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.

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.

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.

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?

Career liberal politicians who make more money from Planned Parenthood murdering babies and selling their parts.

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"?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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. .

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.

"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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

“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.

“ 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

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

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.

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!

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.

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!

Trump*, Liberals*, CAN’T*

Lol are you serious?

Democrats is the name of the party, not liberals, therefore "liberals" need not be capitalized.

Nice clickbait meme.

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.

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.

lol. I rest my case

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.

But Democrats just want to take away assault rifles, not handguns.

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.