And now you simply lash out, when your poor behavior is directly pointed out to you.
This is the response of a toddler.
When literally dozens of people are reading your words in a certain way, and telling you that they represent an amoral disgusting view, it might behoove you to do some analysis of your words, and some self-introspection about why so many people are interpreting your words poorly.
Or you can double down, and retreat to your corner and cry about how everyone is picking on you and lying because you’re so very right. I guess the role of poor beleagured martyr is comforting.
Calling out lying (in a pit thread directed at me no less) is not lashing out, it is simply pointing out the dishonesty of someone who is quite clearly claiming I have said things I never said. It is simple fact–I never added the qualifier that I am only willing to trade lives for fundamental rights if those lives are people I don’t know. If you can provide such proof I would retract that claim. You cannot do so. Simple fact.
Any time it’s been suggested that you should look at things from the POV of those that die because you want guns being people you actually know instead of just some random strangers, you start accusing us of wishing death on people you know.
JFC, just try, for a half a second, being on the other side of the “I also firmly want it understood—I am 100% willing to trade more deaths for gun rights” argument. Pretend like you or your family are the victim of someone that also head that ideal.
IOW, instead of being willing to trade more deaths for gun rights, are you willing to trade your own life or the lives of those you know?
Seriously, answer the question? If the offer was made the you could have gun rights, or lack thereof, set up however you’d like, are you willing to allow someone to shoot your family members for that?
No joke, no gotcha, answer the question.
So then it’s okay if it’s people you know?
You’ll trade your family or friends?
That’s good to know, because I’m not willing to trade mine.
What if we go the opposite way. What if I could promise you there would never be a single gun death in the US ever again if we put in place a hypothetical gun ban. You would never need a gun for protection again because there would be, literally, no chance of having one pointed at you.
You stated you were willing to trade any number of lives to maintain your ability to have guns (I use the word “ability” knowingly, because it’s not a “right” in the vast majority of the world)
Yet when it is suggested that you consider the thought of trading the lives of people you do know, you got absolutely incensed. It was at that point, you made it abundantly clear (without using the specific words) that you would only consider trading the lives of people you don’t know.
That you don’t understand this basic concept is because you find it uncomfortable, and are therefore putting your fingers in your ears going “la la la la you’re a liar”
It’s understandable - it makes you look like a horrible person. So you want to avoid looking like a horrible person. So you don’t think about it - you lash out and react.
This is the weasel part–it was not “suggested”, a poster wished death on innocent people. Trying to portray it as “you should think about WHAT IF IT WAS YOUR FAMILY”, was not actually what that person said–and if it had been instead of being immoral it would have been childishly stupid. It makes an assumption that for some silly reason I would assume that my own friends and family are immune from societal risks, which is absurd.
It’s like saying “I bet you’ll change your tune on alcohol prohibition when your kid becomes a drunk and dies”; okay, do you actually think most people with alcoholic children become adherents of alcohol prohibition? It’s a silly premise. Plenty of people don’t support [whatever bad thing happens to a family member] being the genesis of outlawing something.
And you continue to react emotionally, because your stance is patently immoral, and folks calling you out on it. Yes, people used harsh words and were mean to you. Boo hoo, grow a pair. When dozens of people tell you something, maybe you should listen, rather than crying that everyone is against you.
Some, of course, have had enough with your self-defense of an immoral stance, and are just telling you to fuck yourself.
So then answer the question. Instead of being 100% okay with trading the lives of some random strangers, would you be okay if those were people you knew?
It’s also entirely unrelated to this discussion.
You keep going back to alcohol. As I mentioned earlier, if you actually want to have a discussion about alcohol prohibition, start a thread on it. Don’t be annoyed that people don’t take that distraction seriously in a thread about guns.
It looks like we’re dealing here with a fundamental lack of empathy on your part.
You are fine with trading the deaths of people you don’t know, so you can keep personal guns.
But you cannot conceive that when you state this, you are telling me that you’re OK with MY children being killed, with MY brothers and sisters being killed, with MY friends being killed in order that you can keep your guns.
You have limited ability to think of others beyond yourself or those you know personally. You cannot conceive that others might have thoughts and feelings of their own. You’re wrapped up in self-absorption and self importance.
This is relatively common - and it’s also common that people who lack empathy are never very likely to understand this lack, or do any kind of self analysis. Because they simply don’t understand that other people are of any importance to their ego-driven world.
Lack of empathy for others does seem to be a defining characteristic of the conservative mindset. (I’d initially typed “modern conservative”, but on introspection, I think this goes back a long way)
No–you’re actually choosing to read this into it. That’s a choice you make, it isn’t a truism.
No one says that a country “lacks empathy” because it, for example, sends soldiers off to war. There is a big difference between a willingness to trade deaths for fundamental rights and the conception that you are “okay” with the deaths or “don’t care.” You’re choosing to add a lot of flavor to a comment I made, that desire has, as far as I can tell, two purposes:
To advance a specious argument you want to make, which inconveniently for you is hard to make solely off what I said (which is why you won’t back up your claims with proof by quoting me saying the things you claim), it is of course easier to denounce someone’s argument when you make it for them.
To slur me with assertions that go outside of anything I have said, based on your own manipulation of reality–i.e. the “fake news” strategy.
How often do you hear about a conservative politician who was anti-gay, until a relative of theirs came out, and now they change their views on it?
It has to happen to them or someone they know before it’s something that they care about.
Fortunately, school shootings are rarer than people coming out of the closet, but that also means fewer chances for conservative politicians to have any empathy. But if it had been Cruz’s daughter’s school that had the shooting, or even if one of them were harmed, I bet he wouldn’t be up there talking the same tired pro-gun talking points.
I disagree. And you’re simply giving us more evidence that you lack empathy. You can’t even begin to imagine how your words can be interpreted by other people… because you have a very limited concept that other people even matter in the first place.
And we certainly can’t teach you empathy. So you’ll continue on this path, I imagine.
Again, good luck with that. It generally does not lead to a happy life, and results in many conflicts, most of which are undoubtedly very confusing to you. Because you don’t have the ability to understand that other people even matter.
