Y’all, these children are acceptable causalities for him. Reminding him that dead children are the product of his convictions is like reminding me that popcorn is what happens when I want a snack at the movies. It’s a reasonable and expected outcome.
The difference is that I’m mad about the price of popcorn.
Including his views on genocide of Canadian First Nations?
You know, I’ve just noticed the one thing that has in common with this one. Maybe Martin just really, really hates kids. Well, certain kinds of kids, at any rate.
Aah, I see I’m not the only one…
Well, to be fair, is there really any such time?
I keep waiting for it to not be “too soon” but it never is. Sadly, it never is.
You are correct, your statement was that you were here to “slap the sheep”.
He’s pretty smart, and often has useful factual information to share. And he’s not a Trumper, so I can respect that.
But he thinks he’s smarter than he actually is, is convinced that he’s the smartest on the board, and while he’s “seen the light” of the current state of the Republican party, his ethics are far more in line with them than they are with people who don’t want to see more dead at the altar of gun worship in this country.
You’re a delusional imbecile–I don’t have anything to do with these shootings, you’re confusing your own emotional reaction with being “mad” that I got in the way of the typical SDMB useless, whingeing, “crybaby train” on mass shootings. You guys wanted to post a bunch of feel-good nonsense about how terrible it all is, how America sucks, gun owners suck, Republicans suck, etc etc. And I simply pointed out that it’s not effective. That it’s a loser for Democrats politically. That you’re just rolling into a cycle that, so far, has ultimately always worked to Republican advantage.
The thread that kicked this off is about the politics of gun control, I see little reason to get into a gun rights dispute–but there is an intrinsic tradeoff to liberty and security, across the board. Being honest about the fact that I am willing to accept a higher risk to society for a certain liberty, is simply being truthful. There are a number of issues that we allow in our society that create dead children. It is actually deranged to believe you can, through fiat, create a society where no children die.
I’ve also clarified many times I am fine with any number of gun controls, I am just not in favor of regimes of mass-banning. Considering the Democrats haven’t been able to summon political support for even moderate gun control, I find it shocking they don’t at least consider more moderate proposals–and actually push them throughout the year, not just when a bunch of kids are dead. Frankly I think Democrats misunderstand the political opportunity that opens when these shootings occur–namely, this isn’t a time you’re going to make much political hay on gun control. It just isn’t. Gun control battles, as much as they can be advanced, happen when passions are cooler on the issue.
You mean the thread kicked off by you and Lance Turbo being unaware that “cultural genocide” as it is commonly described doesn’t perfectly meet the 1948 UN legal definition of genocide? A conversation started by this post:
No one ever said the underlying acts weren’t some form of genocide, the dispute was whether they would meet specific legal standards for that under UN 1948 definitions, which is a simple matter of law, not of morality or broader definitions. The fact that you simply didn’t understand that reflects your proclivity to emotional histrionics.
I don’t think that at all. But I do think that this board is a nest of a lot of people who think their incredibly dishonest and incredibly manipulative styles of argument make them morally superior to other people, and I enjoy jousting with that from time to time, which is fine. There’s a big contingent of people on this forum (like the OP of this thread, for example), and some of the common histrionic types, that seek to argue by falsely defining what another person says for the purpose of generating posts on off-board forums where they can then all slap themselves on the back about it.
Your contribution to this world is that you help keep America the kind of place where children are regularly gunned down. At the end of your life, you will have helped ensure that thousands of people have been killed. That’s who you are.
That is simply not factual. You have an emotional belief, which you are entitled to have, it has nothing to do with reality.
Not going to re-litigate your genocide denialism, motherfucker. Anyone who wants to can read your appalling posts in those threads.
I’m just amused that you can’t sustain the “reasonable conservative” charade despite all your recent pretense. The bilious poison and festering shit that is your base nature just floats to the surface every time.
You’re the one who lets his racism and cowardice cloud your judgement so fully that you can’t admit that guns are the problem and I’m the one with emotional beliefs. You’re a pussy and a moron. You’re a piece of shit.
Can you name one moderate proposal that has a chance in hell of getting 60 votes in the Senate?
And this is just another dishonest post–and frankly this is typical of you. For some reason you got emotionally upset that someone, in a literal response to a moderator (in this case What_Exit) mentioning the 1948 UN guidelines on genocide, and another poster (myself) weighing in on the legal issues around that. The law and morality are simply not the same thing–but you saw someone at all suggest that the legal issues could be nuanced (which has nothing to do with the broader issue–something I conceded from the actual very start of the discussion.) Based on your posting history, I believe you are smart enough that you know better. For that reason I conclude that you simply enjoy turning any nuanced argument around your “trigger areas”, which are race and a few other things related to race, into emotional histrionics. I assume you actually get some pleasure (maybe sexually) from attacking almost anyone who has any disagreement with you about fairly benign issue like international law as racist, and because you have a little coterie of hangers-on, you get to feel your ego rubbed when they all flock to your side, now helping you fight in a righteous crusade entirely of your own making.
It’s incredibly dishonest and silly, and I’m not going to pretend I don’t see the stage you like to setup for yourself and the play acting you like to do. But oh yes, @MrDibble , please keep being our righteous crusader.
This is a very juvenile post, is this really how you think you should communicate? Seriously? Making up lies about someone (calling me racist) and then calling me a “pussy and a moron”? Okay.
Probably not. But I think that represents a fundamental misunderstanding of where we are. In 1994 it would have been fairly unrealistic to expect any State to pass a law allowing you to concealed carry without a license, at least if the State did not already have such a law, the trend at the time was that the licensing regimes were quite popular with both parties. Now half the country lets you conceal carry without a license. How did we go from a proposal that had no chance of passing, to being implemented in half of the States?
I can’t predict what the future holds, but histrionics linked to big impact, horrible events, have proven they alone cannot move the football. Maybe a more coordinated and long-term campaign can’t move it either, but I haven’t much seen it tried. I also openly question, if you can’t be effective on gun control, why lose the votes? FWIW I think the efforts of figures like Mark Kelly and Michael Bloomberg have been relatively smart in how they focus on the States and localities, but I still think by “leading” with AWB style ideas means they could still tweak it to be more effective.
<Proceeds to try and re-litigate his genocide denialism, with bonus appearance of the “Angry Black Man” trope - only curiously sexualized. Someone fapped over that imagery, I’m sure, and I know it wasn’t me.>
The only appropriate reply: I am TRYING to eat breakfast!
That’s actually just trolling. You have formed an opinion on other posters, an opinion which, IMO is incredibly farcical and self serving, and use that as an excuse to rile people up by showing how shitty a person you can really be.
People who turn their nose up at the feces you pull out of your ass and put on a platter aren’t being morally superior, they are just disgusted by your disgusting behavior.
Evidently you spend time researching this off board behavior, and it seems to matter to you a great deal. As I’ve only ever used any of the splinter boards to get updates when SDMB was down (which I don’t think has occurred since the migration), whatever behavior it is that you are describing is not something that excuses your behavior on this board.
Excellent job, continue to play your part! Do you have a theater background? You have a knack for it.
Also, bravo on the “motherfucker”, that’s how we know you’re hip and edgy man.
This post is a great example of my point–you immediately alter the meaning of my words to make them much worse, and then go from there. I can understand the desire to do that–attacking the created meaning of words is easier than dealing with what other people actually post.
I’m sorry–what specific behavior, and provide evidence, can you point to of mine that is bad behavior on this board, in relation to the last day or so and its dramas?
Aah, we’ve already reached the part where you think you’re funny? You’re even worse at that than that idiot SlackerInc was, and you’re going for that desperation ploy way sooner than he ever did.
The references to how you take opponents down with ease with your verbal kung-fu can only be a few posts away …
I am aware that most people feel insulted by accurate descriptions. Some take that as a means to improve themselves, and some use it as a reason to double down and ensure those descriptions are as accurate as possible.
You know, this is a very reasoned analysis, and one I happen to agree with. But your credibility pretty much gets annihilated when you pull a boner like “why aren’t you worried about all those other deaths?” This changes the conversation from advocating for a certain political strategy, to shitting on people for the offense of reacting to today’s current events instead of yesterday’s current events. And it suggests that the deaths of children don’t bother you nearly as much as the hurt feelings of your gun collection.
So I guess congratulations on defeating yourself at whatever you were trying to do here.
You are trivializing the source of his libido.
…that wasn’t the dispute, actually. Not unless you thought that the thread started at post 978.