My presence in her life will more that counteract the presence of a gun. Which, by the way is mere correlation. You may find a person is 5 times more likely to commit suicide if they use vinegar as a cleaner in their home. Mere correlation.
I can be dangerous on occasion. I took up skydiving this year.
Because of the socially constructed nature of race, a person can board a plane in the US as a black person, and exit the plane in Brazil as a white person. They have a different notion of race there. A black person can be white.
It's hilarious that you think a man can be a woman but a black man can't be white. Race is for more socially constructed than gender expression. Pigment is far less consequential than sex organs and the resulting physical affects of them.
Sure there is a relationship. Drugs have a huge black market, which always comes with violence. If you look at the CDC data, you'll see that drug poisoning kills twice the people guns do. You'll also see that states with the highest gun deaths do not neatly overlap with states having the highest drug deaths.
There's no basis for the claim that illegal gun use is greater than illegal drug use. Perhaps gun use in general is greater than illegal drug use, but legal gun use isn't the issue.
I don't think the father of the dead college kid is reassured by the notion that their kid's death was peaceful.
We aren't trying to compare like with like. I am demonstrating that all the talk about guns is under the pretext of minimizing or reducing impact. If that wasn't a false pretense, we would hear more about those things that have a greater impact, as drugs do by a long shot.
Lol all this attention because I said racial supremacists are the least supreme examples of their race, and you (for some reason) took it personally.
Norwich thought I was limping him with racial supremacists for no other reason than he is the least supreme kind of person.
Of all the people killed in 2020, 33% we're from drugs. 16.2% we're from guns. 33% is a higher death rate than 16.2%. Since the measured population is people killed, that's twice as many people.
The vast majority of gun owners are never even shot. There are more gun owners than drug users. Drugs kill at a higher rate than guns.
Asian countries have long been primitive backwaters except for where they adopted healthy economic institutions, or stole from those who had healthy economic institutions. Their backwater position had nothing to do with their race. That's why they thrive in the west under healthy institutions.
You're looking at the outcome and presuming a racial cause. That's because skin tone is all you have in common with the high quality white people you champion.
That proposed criminalization is holding law abiding citizens responsible for the actions of law breakers. When I pointed that out, you said they wouldn't be law abiding citizens. That's a circular argument justifying the proposed law. Those people ARE law abiding citizens. You can't point to future criminalization as a defense for the proposed law.
This is very obvious. Get off this fallacy so we can proceed.
This is another lamentably false statement. 32 million people regularly use drugs in the United States and there were 100,000 OD deaths last year. Your apparent belief that 32 million people intentionally shot someone with the intent of killing them last year is preposterous and stupid. There are a lot more people taking drugs than shooting people with guns and this should be perfectly obvious to anybody with even half a functional brain cell.
If drugs are more lethal than guns, which seems to be -- bizarrely -- what you are implying, then why is the military armed with guns and not drugs?
You are equating lethal shooters with non lethal drug users. That's fallacious. You should be equating drug users with gun users (owners) to make a comparison. Many more people own guns than use lethal drugs. The vast vast majority of gun owners are perfectly safe, even while actively shooting their guns.
Drugs kill twice as many people as guns do. The military doesn't employ drugs because drugs accidentally kill the user at an astronomical rate. Far more than what guns kill on purpose.
Firstly, You're not suggesting a world wide ban on guns are you? That's gonna take a little more conquering. Yes I am talking about the issues as they relate to America, and what might be done. There is literally nothing to be done about global gun and drug deaths.
Secondly, if something people do for fun kills them at twice the rate of tools meant to kill, that makes my case even greater. We talk about guns because of politics, not because of impact. Which leads to the thirdly.
Thirdly, this is not tu quoque (you're terrible at identifying logical fallacies haha). It is about what we discuss and why. It's driven by political narrative, not impact.
Did you ever consider it might be because drug users take drugs of their own free will, whereas gunshot victims don't usually volunteer to get sprayed with bullets?
Lol you're incorrect. The majority of gun deaths are from suicide. Even including suicide, drug deaths are double gun deaths. And including suicide is what disingenuous talking heads always do when discussing gun violence.
You're future criminalizing law abiding citizens as cause for creating the law that would criminalize them. That's circular reasoning and it's not what I did.
I wasn't even discussing gun bans when I suggested that penalizing criminals and not law abiding citizens is complex in this context. That post was in keeping with your statement that individuals should be held accountable for their own actions, not those of others. You abandoned that notion as soon as it failed to meet your wants.
Of course 2A can be amended, through the amendment process. There is 0 political will for such. The result is that a gun ban is illegal and will remain so for the foreseeable future. That's logically linear and factual.
You can't use flawed laws as a defence against propositions to change those laws because that's circular reasoning.
That's not what I did, but if I had it wouldn't be an example of circular reasoning. I was referring to getting guns out of the hands of criminals while leaving innocent people alone. Declaring those people future criminals to justify the law that will criminalize them actually is circular reasoning.
A gun ban is illegal. It's against the supreme law of the land. Banning guns is therefore already criminal.
You can't characterize good laws as flawed to justify flawed laws. It's not circular reasoning, but it is relying on a false premise.
You said individuals should be held responsible for their actions. Now you're suggesting criminalizing individuals who have done nothing wrong. Your internal contradictions need to be addressed.
I worded the title after a separate debate by the same name was closed.
We do need to hold individuals responsible, individually. That's why it's a complex matter to get the guns out of the hands of shooters without taking them from law abiding gun owners.
As a child, I used a gun often.
A person who ascribes superiority to a race generally does so because they lack any level of personal superiority. It's never those who are truly superior in some aspect who claim it has anything to do with their pigment. They know it's a product of ability and environment.
In short, racial supremacists are always the least supreme examples of their race.
Racism: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/
Racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
When you say that a black person cannot be what a white person can be, it is a racist statement. By definition. A black person can be anything a white person can be, including a racist. Ask a Black Hebrew Nationalist.
It is monumental irony that the largest group of racists in American society today are those who purport to be anti-racist. Racism such as that presented in your posts needs to stop
We are losing the war on hate and antisemitism.
No we aren't. It feels that way only to people inside a particular echo chamber. The increase in accusations of racial hate and bigotry arose out of the political potency that comes from opposing such things. Opposition to bigotry is politically potent because bigotry is repellant to western culture. But that also means that politically motivated people must find racism and bigotry wear it doesn't actually exist, namely in their political opponents. Then they convince people in their echo chamber that political opponents are the real life monsters of their imagination, thus driving votes. Cynical politics
It's a little more like someone watching an inconvenient truth and freaking out about the end of the world, while someone who took a little more time than watching one propaganda piece reassures them that the world is not ending.
It is absurd to claim that military service is high prestige and low risk due to high foreign civilian casualties. In the US, military service in war time is far more dangerous than not serving. That's one reason for the moderate prestige. And military casualties are not limited to the battle field. Check into veteran suicide if you're a curious person.
The "Greater male variability hypothesis" does a better job of explaining why there are more men in leadership. It also explains why there are more men in destitute poverty. While men and women have very similar averages for very many measures, the bell curve is not shaped the same. Women tend to cluster more around the average, making the curve taller in the middle, while men tend to have more individuals falling into the ends of the tails on both ends.
Gender differences are not themselves socially constructed; how those differences are expressed is socially constructed. It's a subtle difference, but it's paramount to understanding the relevant social phenomena we observe. The lack of this understanding is the source of much junk pop science and sociology errors. These errors require willfully ignoring the impact of natural and sexual selection (evolution).
The feral child phenomenon is usually the result of terrible abuse and neglect from a very young age. It is the result of a child being isolated from human contact beginning early and lasting for years. Some few situations have involved a child in the wild. Often they never acquire the ability to speak. On some occasions speech is developed but highly limited.
There has been speculation about the impact of mask mandates on very young children. The concern regards early childhood development of emotional recognition and language development when half of everyone's face is consistently covered. My daughter was born in late 2019. I was sure to never wear a mask at home while interacting with her. By the time she went to daycare, the caretakers mostly did not wear masks. She speaks very well for her age. If there is a broad negative impact on early childhood development, my daughter has avoided it.
Males and females are not arbitrarily assigned their sex at birth. It is determined through observation of physical, biological reality. Trans men are not actually men, that's why you have to put "trans" at the beginning so everyone knows you're referring to a female who prefers male pronouns.
I'm not sure that the children of dead soldiers would be comforted by the notion that only 10% of war casualties are military so most folks aren't like their dead dad. We don't have an active draft, meaning we aren't picking a class to send. Troops volunteer. Those volunteers are overwhelmingly male. If there was a draft, women are excluded.
How you perceive (or believe others perceive) female masculinity or femininity does not create a double bind for them. You seem to be grasping at straws in the face of multiple inequities that I presented.
Claiming that you see no double standard is only indicative of your own double standard. If all of the inequities I mentioned worked against women instead of men, you would see them as proof of an overwhelming misogynistic patriarchal culture.
That's not a counter argument so much as a statement of disagreement.
A rise in hate crime from miniscule to less miniscule does not indicate any level of broader cultural acceptance. Nor does the existence of an obscure fringe internet haven for racists. In fact, the existence of hate crimes as a designated category of crime demonstrates the cultural, and subsequent institutional rejection of racism as something worthy of special legal punishment.
On occasion, famous people are caught on a hot mic saying something racist; their career is over. It used to just be the way people talked Politicians are constantly trying to construe the position of their opponents as racist because it is detrimental to winning elections. Racism used to be a common political approach.
Racist is the most toxic accusation one can hurl. It's toxic because it is culturally rejected.
It's often the case that the facts are irrelevant to his statements. Pertaining to this discussion, it doesn't matter if Israel is actually fine without American Jews, it matters that Trump thinks American Jews need to get on board for the sake of Israel. You taking his statement as an antisemitic threat is absurd, and likely insincere.
That's not an example of antisemitism. He is claiming to be super pro-Israel, and that the result is super supportive American evangelicals and Israel Jews. He is saying that American Jews need to get on board before it is too late for Israel.
Attacking a particular group for a perceived policy position is not the same as attacking a particular group BECAUSE they are that group.
Did you read the article? It's not very long. There's always a reason when the headline fails to fit the body of an article. Also, the article fails to link to, or show, the full text of the original post. There's a reason for that too
Men have shorter life expectancy. They are disproportionately homeless, addicted, and murdered. They are wildly disproportionately incarcerated. They are the vast majority of war time combat deaths. They are the majority of suicide victims. The draft is still for men only. They receive biased settlements against them in divorce and child custody.
None of this is to pretend that men are victims of some kind of matriarchy. People are victims only if they have been individually victimized which is most often not a product of their sociological category. This is merely presented to indicate the double standards of those who espouse the mass victimization of sociological categories.
I respectfully disagree, this may seem like semantics but only white people can be racist against racialized otherwise known as BIPOC people.
The semantics are incredibly important, and you're incorrect about them. Racism is a word that, until recently, was widely understood in the context of individual racial discrimination or prejudice. Indeed this is still the first definition presented in Webster. This first definition is foundational to the second definition, which is systemic racism.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/
Interestingly, those what want to pretend that systemic racism the only racism possible, often claim that only white people can be racist. It's ironic because this position falls squarely into the first, primary definition of racism. As if a white person, inherently, can be something a black person cannot. Furthermore, this racist position is often weaponized, to accuse individuals who are not racist of upholding a racist system, this implicating them in individual racism.
When a white group of children bullies the only Black child in the school this is racism as well as internal bias. This is because only white people have the super powers of the world to back them up. Including the United States, Canada, France, Germany, United Kingdom and more to enact institutional racism.
A racist childhood bully does not have the support these countries. Indeed, being called racist is one of the most damaging accusation one can hurl in the listed countries. The listed countries have laws that, if the bully continues into adulthood, will be utilized by the very systems in question to punish the racist for their racism. Our institutions, like our cultures, are anti-racist, that's why the consequences for racism are both socially and legally dire.
Without institutional racism, this would only be a case of internal bias. Which is the case when a group of Asian children bully an American Indian. Or any other combination of BIPOC people bullying other BIPOC people. Same when BIPOC people bullying white people.
This statement relies on your misunderstanding of racism. It is, fundamentally, discrimination and prejudice based on ones race. A black person can be anything a white person can be, including racist. To maintain that a black person is inherently incapable of something due strictly to the superficial qualities of pigment, is a racist position.
The dominant, justified, demonization of racism has caused a substantial decline in the number of actual, individual racists. The clever thing about racist systems, is that they can be managed and dominated by non-racist people. So the narrative was turned to systemic racism by those vested in keeping racism a predominant issue. The lack of individual racists is so stark, that we have had to turn a focus on micro-aggressions just to find a substantial aggressions at all.
That being said it is all about the movie, shows, and music that are widely broadcast. These add in institutional racism. There are four dimensions to racism, HIIP historical, institutional, interpersonal and personal. We really need to pass reparations H.R. 40 to end historic trauma and dismantle institutional racism.
Many of our most celebrated actors, musicians, and athletes are non-white. They are celebrated by a predominantly white population. That celebration is independent of the color of the admirer or admiroree. Which is a positive statement about modern western culture with regard to racism.
Reparations are untenable on both practical and moral grounds. Collective punishment is a war crime for a reason.
If the kid experiences race based bullying, then that's racism. If the kid is not targeted by police for their race, that's not racism.
The movie, shows, and music a person chooses to consume is irrelevant.
Regardless, in America today, blaming others for ones own situation is detrimental to an individual. Whether they are blaming racism, their parents, or anything else.
It had always been the case that we only heard what the information gate keepers wanted us to hear. That is falling apart with the internet. No, I'm not talking about blogs with questionable theories. I'm talking about the easy accessibility of videos documenting shit that contradicts lies of politicians etc. I'm talking about legit news upstarts.
This is a huge problem for narrative builders. It also contributes to societal disunity. Just as the printing press was an information revolution that the powerful sought to control, the internet is as well.
You wouldn't call the cops who hide in the hallway but you fully believe that most cops will hide in the hallway. You'll need that special 911 for hero cops, rather than that 911 for the regular ones.
No mass shooter was ever stopped by anyone who was without a gun.
Magical thinking. Broad disarmament is not a possibility in the US. Legal issues aside, there are far too many in a country far too big. Instead of pipe dreams, we should consider real solutions given the physical, legal, and social realities on the ground.
The problem is that you don't believe they CAN overcome their past. You favor policies that hold poor people in their impoverished state while you claim they need more from the nanny state that holds them down. That's the old paternalism of the slave days reinvented by modern Democrats. Those lower expectations are based on race. There's a word for that.
