I was on your side brontoraptor. I think we should all have guns. What is it you think my argument is?
If one out of every ten people had a gun on them, mass shootings would probably never happen.
Exactly my point. Even someone like you gets it. And who cares what the media thinks?
Not all gun owners are psychopaths for the same reason that not all Muslims are terrorists. You are no different from the people you are arguing with.
Individuals are individuals. Melodramatic stereotypical characters aren't real. They exist in movies. Some Muslims are terrorists and some aren't (even if its a slighlty higher percentage of their population). Similarly, some people who buy guns are psychopaths and some want to protect their families (even if its a slightly higher percentage of the population of people who buy guns than other populations that are psychopaths, if that is even true, which it might be).
It doesn't make a difference if you stop selling them to psychopaths. Then psychopaths will figure out how to make automatic assault rifles, if that's what they really want, and then law abiding citizens won't have any. And if they can't make automatic rifles than they'll have pistols which by the way are much more valuable when no one else around them has one.
Whether or not you sell guns probably can't matter that much to someone who's extremely crafty. If your inventive enough I think you can make anything. It might get a little rarer, but ultimately it shouldn't make too much of a difference.
Australia is one country. And still no one has explained the strict gun control laws that didn't help Paris, Brussels, Turkey, or Chicago.
And even in Australia, they got rid of mass shootings (although I'm sure someday someone might find a way to commit one even there if we wait long enough) but conceivably they've gotten rid of mass shootings. There are still shootings and even though it is rare no one is able to defend themselves in those cases:
https://globalnews.ca/news/3784603/
In Australia, people still use guns to kill people, its just not assault weapons.
Bombs can't be used for self-defense. Guns can. Not the same story.
If you illegalize guns, I promise you there will be more people willing to go to the trouble of making a gun than a bomb because so many people would rather be rebels than stop protecting their families.
What happens if a liberal decides they want to be Christian? How do they fail?
That's exactly my point. There are also no videos that say she DIDN'T want it either. The way I see it, if we don't know either way, then by default the tapes should stay secret.
So it has to be her kids' choice? I think it shouldn't be anyone's choice. She deserves privacy.
Right exactly, we have no way of knowing what she would want which is exactly the problem.
What if she wouldn't have wanted it and we do it anyways? That doesn't sound like an issue to you?
Trump won once. If he can win once against all odds that easily, he could win again by just as win because its already happened at least once.
Ok, maybe you wouldn't care, but would SHE care? I would care so who's to say. I wouldn't care after I was dead but if I knew that was gonna happen to me I'd care.
I'm not claiming any of that. I'm not throwing insults. There are plenty of conservative atheists and plenty of liberal theists. I'm not trying to be mean but figure it out.
I think what he's asking isn't if you'll care after your dead about what happens then. What he's asking is do you care right now if your privacy will be invaded ten years after your death. I certainly have things I don't want people to know even after I die. Don't you?
Let me put it this way:
If someone recorded your entire life but you knew the recording wouldn't be released until after you were dead, would you feel bad about the recording?
How do you want to be remembered? I think this matters quite a bit. I think we're all entitled to our own secrets.
Did you not see the banned documentaries?
https://www.youtube.com/
That is from a banned documentary.
This question is retarded.
I've heard the whole breeding example, but honestly that's clearly not all the biotech companies are doing.
FromWithin,
Two questions:
1. What is your age?
2. Have you ever seen a psychiatrist?
3. Have you ever been diagnosed with anything?
Before the Nazis came along, the swaztica was a peace symbol. It dated back a long time before WWII.
I agree with you. That's what I think too. I think the government really needs to let us know what's going on. People should have privacy though, even celebrities.
I agree. It will be interesting to seevwhat someone who doesn't has to say though.
Yeah and what would have happened if Hitler won? I'll bet you wouldn't say that then. Genocide is genocide.
This debate is a joke right? Are you ok? Why even ask that question?
True. I probably forgot to mention that I have yet to meet a female with this problem but I have met females that are tomboys who hahe depression due to bding bullied or something that I might trust a little more with this but there doesn't appear to be many girl with this problem as much as guys. If you got a bunch of people who would be in on these secrets somehow into a room you'd probably have a room full of guys.
Is it sexist to say its commonly a guy thing?
I agree generally with what you said but I figured there might be a conflict of opinion.
In the case of abortion maybe, but even if it is my argument isn't whether or not abortion is murder. My argument is that a preventative chip sidesteps the murder debate.
Also, girls over 21 can still choose to have it on.
Right and what I'm saying is regardless of if it's murder, with the chip we don't have to deal with the issue to begin with. It sounds like your argument supports my side rather than yours.
Someone over 21 is not necessarily a good parent but I'll bet there's a lot more good parents over 21 than 16 year olds. Also for a 16 year old it's a lot harder to be a good parent.
A sixteen year old does not a good parent make, other than in some potentially weird circumstance. If that same sixteen year old instead waits until they're a lot more experienced then there's at least A REALISTIC CHANCE that they will be one, even if that's not always the case.
Basically, someone over 21 is OFTEN A DECENT parent and a sixteen year old is RARELY, IF EVER, a good parent. The kid will probably go to adoption if it's young grandmother has any brains anyway just for that reason.
Then women under 21 are giving birth to kids who aren't going to have decent childhoods. Better to prevent and not have the birth issue at all.
Exactly. Which is why your wrong.
The birth control chip is preventative, therefore not murder.
Your right. Otherwise it would be the one eating me. I am such a fool.
I believe that it's not possible to have a credible opinion on God. Here's what I mean by that.
We have no credible evidence on either side of the debate.
If we did, it wouldn't be accepted unless we found the Ten Commandments on a moon of Saturn or some stupid shit.
Next question.
Bippity boppity boo. Glare glarg. Your sentence doesn't make any fucking sense!
You know, I kind of wish I was loved. I like sandwiches. Why can't they love me back?
Yes and there are other forms of birth control besides murder. Let me put it this way.
Let's say A is subcategory of B.
A always has to be B but B is not necessarily A.
Abortion is a form of birth control. But that doesn't mean birth control is saying abortion.
Your argument means nothing against mine unless the only form of birth control is abortion even if you are right, since my initial argument implied a different form of birth control than abortion.
So how is other birth control besides abortion murder? If you proved how then birth control = murder, not just one form of it.
What if there's an ambulance in that traffic and a person who will die if they don't get medical attention IMMEDIATELY!? Blocking traffic in protest is selfish.
Even if abortion is murder, which I don't know for sure, birth control isn't murder.
Exactly. That's my full logic right there. No pregnancies = no abortion issues.
Oh, and scientists were able to recreate it:
It's historical fact. Get over it.
Can you learn about science by working at McDonalds? How about Math? She's ignoring the academic portion.
Somehow this is either extreme right or extreme left propaganda. It has to be.
This time I actually think you gave him a pretty fair chance. I'd go further and ask why places like Chicago and Paris have the strictest gun laws and yet they have all these mass shootings or loads of crime. Look at Brussels.
In states in the US with more gun laws there are more shootings and vice versa. Same with other countries. Paris had the strictest gun laws. Chicago has strict gun laws. This is retarded. Cite a source that shows that countries with more gun laws have less violence.
Yet in places with fewer gun laws, there is less crime and fewer shootings per year.
Exactly, and being able to defends ourselves in the norm makes us more able to defend ourselves when we're in a clear and present danger. If you can't fight now, why are you going to fight tomorrow when a gang member puts a gun to your head? We all need to always be able to defend ourselves, even in the norm. Otherwise, why is it any different during the clear and present danger?
Ever heard of the issue behind the Monsanto protection act? Corporations have other ways to influence people besides being in charge of them directly.
Right, and that rare instance is ok because the child would probably be unhealthy.
Teenagers do not have good judgment. Neither do extreme alcoholics. I think you want the child to have a good upbringing. You don't want to make religious people mad by aborting. You also don't want women to be mad not being allowed to abort. This doesn't kill anyone and frankly it can be turned off.
The only problem with your choice rule is it underestimates how much experience is needed for someone to understand what is good for them and their body. This way if two teenagers or college kids have sex, no one on either side will care.
Any law you make is going to piss someone off.
I think someone who isn't mentally stable or doesn't understand how to raise a child should have to have it. It would just be for minors and people under guardianship. It would not be for full grown women, 18+ or 21+ to not be able to have a child unless they were mentally unstable. Teenagers and alcoholics don't make good parents and the child will have a terrible childhood if they have the baby. If they abort then religious nuts get mad. If they don't then as I said just now, the child won't have a very good upbringing.
If it were 100% up to me, I know this sounds sexist but, I would get the age to turn it off at 25.
We could also make rules to make sure the devices aren't used to maliciously track women or invade their privacy. So I mean it's not like it's badly intentioned.
Religious people aren't against all forms of birth control, just killing a developing baby. This prevents the whole issue. It's not perfect but any rule you make will make someone pissed.
Corporations can be used to control the individual as well. I think it depends where you work. The CEO of Monsanto is about as bad as any politician. McDonalds may be less corrupt. I think your generalizing it a little bit.
With all of the biotech bullies, its hard not to want to pick carefully about where I choose to get a job.
You choose to blame corporations while I choose to blame politicians. One creates the jobs through hard work and risk, while one spends it's time trying to extract money from their success.
I don't choose to blame corporations or politicians. I don't pick. I blame them both.
Corporations have lots of money! So it is no coincedence that Government uses it's power to get their greedy hands on that money.
The gun lobbies arguably owns much of congress. Congress members I think it's both government and corporations that are greedy.
My logic is that when a liberal or conservative blames either a politician or corporation of being corrupt, with some extreme leftist/rightist exceptions, I believe they tend to be right.
I think Hillary was owned by Monsanto and several corporations (like stated earlier), since I believe one has to make a deal with some powerful group, outside of government, to get themselves to the presidency.
Let me put it this way: I think it's Wal Street's job to be greedy. If you hire someone to help you with stock exchange, you want the greediest, lying, cheating motherfucker you can get. Otherwise, you won't get a decent amount of money for the stocks you want to sell (unless you know what your doing of course).
Hillary hypocritically secretly supported Monsanto while pretending to hate Wal Street.
What I think is that any politician, even if they think they cannot be corrupted like Trump, will end of having to bend a little bit to become president. I think Trump for example had to make a deal with the NSA, FBI, CIA, etc. I'm against government surveillance (which Obama supported) just for this reason because I think this shit is sold to corporations and sometime in the far future, may be used against civilians.
The point I'm trying to make is that while liberals and conservatives disagree about blaming politicians or corporations, I think they are both right about the corruption on the opposite side, simply because of the hard facts and evidence each side gives to support the corruption of the opposite side.
On the other hand, when people try to defend their side, yes they sometimes make a good argument. But when someone presents me evidence defending anyone from Obama to Trump to Hillary to anyone in government I get a very uneasy feeling about their evidence. Something tells me its a lie.
I think the same thing about corporations. When people post a Netflix documentary about the real effects of GMOs, I feel like that is good evidence. When I see the CEO of McDonalds arguing in an interview on a Netflix documentary, I look at that and don't see much evidence supporting their claim.
So, even with evidence people give me to pick, I think it's probably all bad either way: Democrat or Republican. I end up thinking the bad shit is true, the good shit is false.
I think there's not much difference either way. People from either party seem to be in bed with the Coke Brothers, Monstanto, GE, NSA, FBI, I don't care.
Could one post enough credible evidence defending the Republicans OR the Democrats to the point where I am truly convinced my negative assumption about everyone is false? Possibly, but I haven't seen enough good AND defensive evidence about such issues. Everything I see (which isn't much because I'm not a super expert) points to this assumption to me:
"The national stage is a lost cause."
I would much rather vote for individual local propositions or very specific actions than for a candidate for president. I think the corruption at that level might be delay-able for some time.
So I don't agree with you about corporations, but I do agree about politicians.
Example of something good : Trump wants to implement a travel ban. <-- Makes sense. Good idea. It's a temporary measure. Someone who truly understands how shit works would support it. But people don't. The circuit court of appeals rejects his claim and he has to go to the Supreme Court.
So in rare instances (obviously, this isn't a proposition like I proposed earlier, but still fits), in the case of a rare issue, a politician might make a good decision.
If Trump keeps going in that direction, I mean we already saw an assassination attempt once. If it's too obvious that the FBI is at fault for them to do it again, they'll prop him up somehow.
JFK tried to go after the mob after he made a deal with them to get elected (based on info I heard from my parents who know a lot about politics). He betrayed them and look what happened to him?
I think corruption is a combo of corrupt corporations, politicians, and master criminals, and some who fit into more than one of this category.
I also know that the government itself is a corporation. We vote for the options, but the two options are ultimately put out there by the same people.
In recent years, besides winning the abortion fight, feminists have sucked politically. They haven't had the same number of wins they used to.
I've seen enough credible evidence of corruption in different circumstances that I'm willing to accept it as probable when some random guy on Facebook says the little they got done was by making deals with the Muslims. Code Pink is an activist organization that secretly supports ISIS but pretends to stand up for women's rights.
If you don't agree with me on all of this, please provide some evidence.
So the guys at Wal Street aren't corrupt? They were in bed with her too.
