1 1
kallend

BAN GARLIC

Recommended Posts

 

16 hours ago, mbohu said:
18 hours ago, Coreece said:

Indeed, just look at the comments above.  Why trouble yourself with harsh reality when you can just blame the ills of American society on white, (preferably christian) conservative penile inadequacy?

Well, yes...and no!
See, now you fall prey to a similar thing: You suddenly bring in "white, christian, conservative" when none of these words or concepts were part of the comments above.

You must be new here.;)

Of course you're right, but just for shits and giggles, who do you really think he was referring to?  Fellow liberals like himself?  Non-religious/liberal gun owners like Georgia Don and Joe Weber?  Black gun owners with tiny penises?

 

17 hours ago, mbohu said:

In any case, though, none of this was said, and none of this is staying on the track we were on: facts, solutions, etc.

. . . and of course that's what Kallend wants, which is why he decided to nitpick your post and raise it as a platform to criticize penis size rather than addressing any of the posted facts, solutions, etc., that he oddly enough dismisses as a diversion.
   

16 hours ago, mbohu said:

I think you may be missing the point here, kallend. . .

. . .that shows again how hard it is to hear each other. You probably saw me agreeing with something Coreece wrote. . . therefore setting up a need to argue against me.

There was no confusion with your post.  Again, he was just using it as a diversion from the aforementioned stats, facts, solutions, etc. that he's either unable or unwilling to address.

16 hours ago, mbohu said:

Since I can probably at this point make the safe assumption that you are for some kind of regulation in regards to guns, the question becomes twofold:

1) WHAT exact kind of regulation?
2) HOW can we make this a reality in this country?

Ban Garlic. That's about the closest he's ever came to actually answering that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Of course you're right, but just for shits and giggles, who do you really think he was referring to?  Fellow liberals like himself?  Non-religious/liberal gun owners like Georgia Don and Joe Weber?  Black gun owners with tiny penises?

That's exactly the interesting question. Who I think he and most people in this discussion are referring to, is an image we construct in our minds of "the crazy conservative gun nut" and the "stupid libtard progressive", which has barely anything to do with reality. We hardly ever argue (much less listen to) each other out here in actual reality, but instead have this private fight with the image that we set up in our minds. The moment we perceive this image of "the enemy" we can already feel our emotions and defenses rise, and all we want to do is obliterate this imagined "person". There is a feeling of satisfaction when hurling our stinging words at them. The problem is, we can't win this argument because both sides exist only in our minds.
"Projective Identification" is a psychological term that fits this scenario. The funny thing is, that this can be so tempting, that it can actually draw other people into the fantasy, making them take on the position of the projected image. So you suddenly find yourself arguing like "the crazy gun nut" or "the libtard progressive", even though you usually have a much more nuanced position.
(And of course there are interests that take advantage of this in the world of politics and money)
 

25 minutes ago, Coreece said:

You must be new here.;)

xD For sure! And "being new" constantly, is actually the best way to fight that dynamic and have a chance of hearing what is actually being said--right here, right now...rather than projecting one's own images and assumptions


 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mbohu said:

That's exactly the interesting question. Who I think he and most people in this discussion are referring to, is an image we construct in our minds of "the crazy conservative gun nut" and the "stupid libtard progressive", which has barely anything to do with reality. We hardly ever argue (much less listen to) each other out here in actual reality, but instead have this private fight with the image that we set up in our minds. The moment we perceive this image of "the enemy" we can already feel our emotions and defenses rise, and all we want to do is obliterate this imagined "person". There is a feeling of satisfaction when hurling our stinging words at them. The problem is, we can't win this argument because both sides exist only in our minds.

Only a few of us here have met each other in real life. A few more have exchanged private messages. All of us suppose we know what others think about any given issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Coreece said:

 

. . . and of course that's what Kallend wants, which is why he decided to nitpick your post and raise it as a platform to criticize penis size  . . . ..

Didn't mention any such thing.  Your reading and comprehension skills need a lot of improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kallend said:
10 hours ago, Coreece said:

. . . and of course that's what Kallend wants, which is why he decided to nitpick your post and raise it as a platform to criticize penis size  . . . ..

Didn't mention any such thing.

Correct, I confused Jerry's penis comment with your penis comment from another thread.  In this thread you were rambling on about Rambo, not penises, my bad.   Glad we got that all straightened out, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2019 at 4:16 PM, kallend said:

Well, let's look at this:

The USA has a far higher murder rate than other wealthy countries.

Other wealthy countries have video games.

Other wealthy countries have mentally ill people.

Other wealthy countries have gang problems.

Other wealthy counties watch much the same TV as Americans.

Other wealthy countries have more restrictive gun laws.

 

But according to the gun lobby and the legislators it has purchased, the gun laws can't be the explanation.  So what is?  Are Americans just intrinsically nastier than the citizens of other wealthy countries?

Other wealthy countries do not freak out about titties on TV. I blame the lack of nudity on American TV

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Coreece said:

Correct, I confused Jerry's penis comment with your penis comment from another thread.  In this thread you were rambling on about Rambo, not penises, my bad.   Glad we got that all straightened out, thanks!

Most of your posts suggest that you are confused.  Probably due to your penchant for writing more than  reading,

Glad we got that all straightened out, thanks!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2019 at 8:38 AM, ibx said:
On 8/19/2019 at 8:16 AM, kallend said:

But according to the gun lobby and the legislators it has purchased, the gun laws can't be the explanation.  So what is?  Are Americans just intrinsically nastier than the citizens of other wealthy countries?

Yes I would say so. This is one of the things that makes the USA so successful and at the same so miserable. Two better words would be individualism and opportunism. Both of these things are not nearly as profound in other countries. In Europe nobody has a problem with socialized health care for example...  The individual has higher standing in the American Psych than it has in the old country by far. 

Here's some stuff on income inequality that I think follows that line of thought:

 

"research suggests that inequality raises the stakes of fights for status among men.

The connection is so strong that, according to the World Bank, a simple measure of inequality predicts about half of the variance in murder rates between American states and between countries around the world.  When inequality is high and strips large numbers of men of the usual markers of status – like a good job and the ability to support a family – matters of respect and disrespect loom disproportionately.

Inequality predicts homicide rates “better than any other variable”, says Martin Daly, professor emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at McMaster University in Ontario and author of Killing the Competition: Economic Inequality and Homicide.

This includes factors like rates of gun ownership (which also rise when inequality does) and cultural traits like placing more emphasis on “honor” (this, too, turns out to be linked with inequality).

All types of homicide are much less common in the egalitarian Scandinavian countries than in the US. But disputes over male status are so much lower in such countries that while in the US, 77% of victims are male, only 50% are in the Nordic nations."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/08/income-inequality-murder-homicide-rates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
7 hours ago, Coreece said:

Here's some stuff on income inequality that I think follows that line of thought:

 

"research suggests that inequality raises the stakes of fights for status among men.

The connection is so strong that, according to the World Bank, a simple measure of inequality predicts about half of the variance in murder rates between American states and between countries around the world.  When inequality is high and strips large numbers of men of the usual markers of status – like a good job and the ability to support a family – matters of respect and disrespect loom disproportionately.

Inequality predicts homicide rates “better than any other variable”, says Martin Daly, professor emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at McMaster University in Ontario and author of Killing the Competition: Economic Inequality and Homicide.

This includes factors like rates of gun ownership (which also rise when inequality does) and cultural traits like placing more emphasis on “honor” (this, too, turns out to be linked with inequality).

All types of homicide are much less common in the egalitarian Scandinavian countries than in the US. But disputes over male status are so much lower in such countries that while in the US, 77% of victims are male, only 50% are in the Nordic nations."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/08/income-inequality-murder-homicide-rates

Yes. This seems intuitive, and seems to be backed up by science... The solution of course would be redistribution, but sadly we all know how that discussion goes in the US... The vehement opposition to redistribution is a majorly compounding factor in inequality. The insane arguments when discussing gun violence and health care on this forum by self described patriots are a good example.

 



 

Edited by ibx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2019 at 2:10 PM, GeorgiaDon said:

I'm curious about what exactly you think those people in El Paso and Dayton should have done to "be prepared".  

Don

Threat analysis. It's an adult check list to limit the threat potential. Use it every time you decide to walk out the front door. 

Or not, that's the great thing about life, choice. YOU may choose to go thru life with blinders on, or be diligent about your own safety/well being. 

What does that mean? Make an educated decision on where to spend your time!  Be vigilant when you are out in public. 

Military experience has given many of us a unique mindset and perhaps an "edge" on dealing with the threat of guns...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NRA’s new slogan should be 

‘Only Thing That Stops A Bad Guy With A Gun Is A Good Guy With A Gun or a Telephone’

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49431699

/tongue in cheek

 

In all seriousness it’s great that this guy was identified before he possibly went postal, which feeds into the crowdsourcing control idea I had some time ago, but there are some serious limitations to this as a solution.

How many erroneous tips would the police get each day? Do we have the infrastructure to support properly investigating all of them and do we want to live in a society where reporting your neighbors / colleagues is the norm? It’s all a bit 1984 for comfort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kallend said:
19 hours ago, Coreece said:

Here's some stuff on income inequality that I think follows that line of thought:

And video games.  Don't forget video games.

Quiet in the peanut gallery!

 

7 hours ago, kallend said:

ANYTHING but the easy availability of guns.

Right, just ignore everything I posted about effective gun control, what else is new.

You asked a question and got a reasonable response, but as usual you just ignore it and hardly ever offer anything elaborate or at least provide some type of meaningful counter argument - just more squawking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who votes for these morons?

Republican Matt Schaefer posted on Facebook Saturday that "so-called gun-control solutions" won't "stop a person with evil intent," and that people should instead pray for victims and those with "evil intent."
"'Do something!' is the statement we keep hearing," he wrote. "As an elected official with a vote in Austin, let me tell you what I am NOT going to do. I am NOT going to use the evil acts of a handful of people to diminish the God-given rights of my fellow Texans. Period. None of these so-called gun-control solutions will work to stop a person with evil intent."
Later in the post he continues: "What can we do? YES to praying for victims. YES to praying for protection. YES to praying that God would transform the hearts of people with evil intent."
 
Which chapter/verse in the Bible describes God giving gun rights to Texans? Anyone? Anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kallend said:
Who votes for these morons?

Republican Matt Schaefer posted on Facebook Saturday that "so-called gun-control solutions" won't "stop a person with evil intent," and that people should instead pray for victims and those with "evil intent."
"'Do something!' is the statement we keep hearing," he wrote. "As an elected official with a vote in Austin, let me tell you what I am NOT going to do. I am NOT going to use the evil acts of a handful of people to diminish the God-given rights of my fellow Texans. Period. None of these so-called gun-control solutions will work to stop a person with evil intent."
Later in the post he continues: "What can we do? YES to praying for victims. YES to praying for protection. YES to praying that God would transform the hearts of people with evil intent."
 
Which chapter/verse in the Bible describes God giving gun rights to Texans? Anyone? Anyone?

There is no separation of Church and Gun in El Paso, it seems. Do you think, if they could, they would hesitate to force their world view on you at the point of a gun?

https://www.guncentralelpaso.com/

El Paso Gun Shop.png

Gun Central Homepage.png

Edited by JoeWeber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kallend said:
Republican Matt Schaefer posted on Facebook Saturday that "so-called gun-control solutions" won't "stop a person with evil intent," and that people should instead pray for victims and those with "evil intent."
"'Do something!' is the statement we keep hearing," he wrote. "As an elected official with a vote in Austin, let me tell you what I am NOT going to do. I am NOT going to use the evil acts of a handful of people to diminish the God-given rights of my fellow Texans. Period. None of these so-called gun-control solutions will work to stop a person with evil intent."
Later in the post he continues: "What can we do? YES to praying for victims. YES to praying for protection. YES to praying that God would transform the hearts of people with evil intent."

I think he's right.  Nothing can stop armed bad people.  Certainly not good guys with guns - unless there are no good people in Texas, and given all the sanctimonious declarations about Godly family values in Texas, that's not the case.  

And this is a good thing overall.  We waste $700 billion a year on the US military to try to stop armed bad people.  We can save all that money and just pray for God to transform the hearts of those people with evil intent into good American consumers.  Certainly a bunch of guys wearing camo won't accomplish that.

That wall that Trump wants?  It's not going to stop bad people who want to cross over.  No wall will stop a person with evil intent.  Pray away the illegals!  It's the ONLY thing that will work.  YES to bringing prayer back to the border!  NO to diminishing the God-given rights of people of Texans, Californians, New Mexicans and Arizonans!

TSA?  What a waste of time and money!  Have the most sanctimonious republican politicians stationed at airports across the US, praying to stop people with evil intent.  YES to praying for protection!  NO to violating the rights of travelers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, billvon said:

I think he's right.  Nothing can stop armed bad people.  Certainly not good guys with guns - unless there are no good people in Texas, and given all the sanctimonious declarations about Godly family values in Texas, that's not the case.  

And this is a good thing overall.  We waste $700 billion a year on the US military to try to stop armed bad people.  We can save all that money and just pray for God to transform the hearts of those people with evil intent into good American consumers.  Certainly a bunch of guys wearing camo won't accomplish that.

That wall that Trump wants?  It's not going to stop bad people who want to cross over.  No wall will stop a person with evil intent.  Pray away the illegals!  It's the ONLY thing that will work.  YES to bringing prayer back to the border!  NO to diminishing the God-given rights of people of Texans, Californians, New Mexicans and Arizonans!

TSA?  What a waste of time and money!  Have the most sanctimonious republican politicians stationed at airports across the US, praying to stop people with evil intent.  YES to praying for protection!  NO to violating the rights of travelers!

Damn Bill, you are totally on to something. You know, I've always thought the cost of reserves and AAD's put a cap on the number of potential new skydivers. I'm thinking I might just can our S&TA's and hire a couple of Priests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 12:45 AM, ibx said:

The solution of course would be redistribution, but sadly we all know how that discussion goes in the US...

Well, this is moving a little off the original topic, but here is the bigger problem, I think:
Redistribution doesn't provide a permanent solution either. The incentives in the system will work against it so hard, that it is like trying to fly a wingsuit upwards against gravity. Sure, it's been proven that this is temporarily possible, but eventually gravity wins out and the suit stalls or has to pick up speed and go down again.

Gravity represents the incentives in the current system. They will eventually increase inequality again, and trying to use laws to work against that may be an absolutely necessary but at best a temporary fix. (...and really hard to achieve, because the incentives of the system will make it very unlikely that someone with power to create laws in the current system will WANT to create such laws--(s)he would be strongly disincentivized to do so--it would be against their own economic benefit!)

Here is the most intelligent set of articles I have recently read in this regard: The most interesting sections are in part 3 & 4, so it requires a bit of reading, but it describes the problem in which we find ourselves really well, and applies to almost all the topics that are mentioned in this part of our Forum:

https://civilizationemerging.com/new-economics-series-part-i/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mbohu said:

Redistribution doesn't provide a permanent solution either. 

So you're against taxes used on common goods like schools, roads, police and so on? In capitalistic society a certain amount of redistribution must happen if not the majority of the people live as indentured servants. Not letting people starve in the streets when they find themselves impoverished is also a nice thing for a society to achieve. I would say these things can be permanently solved by the right amount of redistribution, don't you think? 

The level at which this happens is open for debate, not the fact in itself. 

 

Edit: From your Link: 

>Our current global economic system is not only sub-optimal with regard to both goals, but is fundamentally unstable and ultimately self-terminating. 

Sorry I can't read this diatribe any further... 
Marx already predicted the end of capitalism among countless others and all have been  categorically wrong, that's just the beginning of the problems with this article. It reads like a call for a "planned economy" which has been tried with desasterous consequences. 

This quote alone should tell you all you need to know with whats wrong with this article:

"Valuing things that are scarce independent of actual utility leads to decreased system utility holistically (eg, cut down a forest to mine the gold under it and put it in underground vaults that provide no real utility to anyone – only fiat value)."

Valuation of goods without market input... Now that is a revolutionary idea! what could possibly go wrong? 

 

Edited by ibx
Read the link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
According to FBI Special Agent in Charge Christopher Combs: "If you look at the numbers, we're looking at an active shooter every other week in this country."
The agency has conducted a study on all active shooters -- who they define as "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area" -- between 2000 and 2018 and found the numbers keep increasing.
 
"I think it is frustrating for all of us in law enforcement that we keep having to do this," he said, referring to ongoing investigations. "For the FBI in particular, we do them across the country as a service to our state and local partners. It's just getting worse."
 
This latest shooting took place hours after a series of firearms laws that loosen gun restrictions went into effect in Texas. Included in that list are laws which will allow weapons on school grounds, apartments and places of worship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kallend said:

This latest shooting took place hours after a series of firearms laws that loosen gun restrictions went into effect in Texas. Included in that list are laws which will allow weapons on school grounds, apartments and places of worship.

Just the opposite; the law took effect hours after the shooting. 

Enhanced background checks aren't going to mean anything if there's no enforcement of ownership from cradle to grave.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ibx said:

Sorry I can't read this diatribe any further... 
Marx already predicted the end of capitalism among countless others and all have been  categorically wrong,

Like I said, it requires a little more reading:
"*Please note, my critiques of capitalism are because it is the dominant global economic system. I am not leading in these articles towards suggesting some previous terrible economic system (versions of socialism or communism) as an adequate solution. Obviously not. They were actually different versions of the same underlying autopoietic system that capitalism happens to be the most effective instantiation of (to be discussed later in the series). These critiques are also not to discount the tremendous role capitalism has played heretofore (all the pro-capitalist arguments from Von Mises and Rand to John Mackey and Peter Diamandis are fully factored)."

11 hours ago, ibx said:

Valuation of goods without market input... Now that is a revolutionary idea! what could possibly go wrong? 

 

12 hours ago, ibx said:

It reads like a call for a "planned economy"

Yes, I understand that you may read it that way, because at first it sounds somewhat anti-capitalist (since he is looking at the system from the outside and is pointing out the big problems it is facing) and we are so stuck in our thinking that we immediately assume he must therefore then be for the anthithesis of this system (i.e. "planned economy", communism, etc.)
But this is not at all what it is about. If anything--in regards to valuation--the article points towards expanding the valuation into ALL areas and one of the problems he looks at is, that valuation currently only includes "extractable" simple (or complicated) value and leaves intrinsic (complex) value off the balance sheet:


"An economic system that only recognizes extractable and accumulatable wealth. Where nature (the commons) doesn’t have a balance sheet. So unlike interactions with other economic actors that also have balance sheets, interactions with nature don’t have to be equitable, don’t require consent, and don’t require the ledger to balance. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of the arguments gun advocates make are so disingenuous, so divorced from the facts, so downright ludicrous that it’s simply impossible to believe that they themselves believe them. 
 
We know there are people who struggle with mental illness in every country on Earth, just as there are men prone to violence against their wives,  men who get fired from their jobs,  and immature men who can't tell fantasy video games from reality. We know that what makes the USA different is absurdly easy access to guns.
 
Expect Trump and the GOP to make platitudes and do absolutely NOTHING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1