Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please help me understand your logic. In a the post I was responding to, you referred to people who lacked the capacity to become violent as "sniveling snowflakes." Those sound to me like the words of a person who considers violence a show of strength, something to be respected and admired. If that is true, you should be very proud of the people who attacked that poor woman.
Be consistent. Say it slowly with me: "violence is always bad, mob behavior is always bad." You have a voice and opposable thumbs, you can do it!
Peace out,
Cat << progressive, not feral, not violent, and not weak.
Disclaimer: in case there is any doubt, I think what was done to that woman was horrible. Violence is never the answer.
Catgirl; what you're seeking to understand from this one cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called logic.
Very few of us can understand the polarized silliness that resorts to petty childish name calling and spurious categorizing of their fellow citizens as "snivelling snowflakes" based merely upon political leanings.
These types have no understanding of their fellows fighting in any number of wars, actually putting their lives on the line, probably voted in equal measure for both parties. These types cannot grasp the concept of opposing views making a country healthier by their very nature as stated in any number of ways by those forefathers in their various writings.
A violent society will only get more so until this petty bickering over ideologies misunderstood but entrenched, gets some serious rational and reasoned discussion instead of what comes out of the likes of Trump's mouth to a pandering mass of idiots that lust to hear more of what they've come to take as indicative of "strength."
These types think of themselves as the only ones with backbones while history down through the ages has proven them to be merely .........the ones with big mouths and small brains.
I agree with you about the proxy wars. We have interfered the affairs of far too many countries, with disastrous results. Oddly, there are some of Trump's policies I actually agree with (trade, for one.)
And you are correct: we have survived many administrations, some good, some...not so much. Trump is a little (ha) different. He has an ability to stir up anger that is truly shocking. I know lots of people who voted for him, almost everyone I know in this town, in fact, and they are decent people. I do not fear them individually. What I fear is a mob mentality that drives good people to do horrible things.
I'm not entirely convinced you are right about discrimination. Hateful words got Trump where he is, so why on earth would anyone believe he won't follow up with hateful actions? Those who support him will love it, and who is there, really, to stop him? The Democrats are out of power in both houses of Congress, and most of the horrified Republicans who once opposed him have fallen in line, rather than face the wrath of a man who delights in not only defeating, but destroying, anyone with the audacity to oppose him, or offer up less than full allegiance. Even if he does not do all he said he will, I'm afraid the damage has already been done. Resentments have been inflamed, fears fanned, and all semblance of civility abandoned. I wonder sometimes if he realizes what he has unleashed in his followers, and what he will do if he finds he has a tiger by the tail.
Last of all, I agree with you about the electoral college. Not only does it disenfranchise the voters in most of our states, it doesn't guarantee that electors will vote for the candidate who won their state. There was a news story recently about an elector in Washington state who swore he would go against the vote there and refuse to support Hillary Clinton. In a closer election, this could have thrown the election to Trump. The fine for single-handedly choosing the next president? $1,000.
Glad we can at least talk about thing more rationally, instead of dismissing each other like a bunch of hotheaded teenagers (you voted for trump, you must be either racist or retard!)
in terms of foreign policy, Clinton is very very bad. For some reason this woman just loves wars. what is more disgraceful is that she later blames someone else for her decision.
I am certain most Trump voters don't vote for him out of hatred of minoritie, no matter how some people stretch it. they have their own legitimate concerns which I explained several times. It is very wrong and arrogant to dismiss these people all as racists or rednecks. The assumption that democrats are morally superior is just laughable.
you spoke of mob mentality. well, who are exatly rioting on the streets, burning cars and smashing windows because they don't like the outcome of a democratic election? I am not sure if the hatred of which camp against the other is stronger, but let's say neither is that great. DID Sanders supports riot on the street learning their candidate was basically ripped of the chance to run by the system? did trump supports protest on the street again all the trump demonization, completely unfair and unobjective treatment as well as outright lies spread by the US media?
OK, regarding hate, tell him who did Trump tell us to hate. Did he really encourage us to hate people because they are latinos, or gays? He apparently hates illegal immigrants - well, I do too as a racial minority. If tomorrow politicians in canada proposes to crack down illegal chinese immigrants, I will be totally supportive. My position is not determined by my race, or how it might affect the Chinese people in Canada, rather, as a voter and citizen, I only care about whether the policy is right or not. So what's wrong with deporting no matter how many illegal immigrants? I just don't know. If I sneak into the US and stays illegally, I will be deported, will you sympathize me? What's different for the millions of illegal latinos?
I would say the decision of previous governments not to deport them is wrong. You either change the law by making them legal, or abide by the law by deporting them. not doing anything, that's wrong. And how does that turn into a racism issue? If it were an illegal from sweden, he should be deported too. The fact that it will impact the hispanic population changes nothing.
Destroying anyone who opposes him... where the hell did you get that from? is there any facts behind it at all?? I don't know how many people just form the opinion that trump is a tyrant, dictator or even fascist. It becomes so ridiculous that it seems one can throw any bad words toward him, anything they want, without knowing what those words mean.
One thing that i agree with you is that trump's campaign did unleash the hated and bigotry among certain people, and that's the most serious consequence of this whole thing. But for one, trump himself didn't express such hatred, it is those people's interpretation. two, unfortunately that's what it takes to beat Clinton. If he didn't adopted such tactics, he wouldn't have won. Blame the election or the voters, not the candidate, who did everything by the law. And third, if Clinton is elected, what will happen? more wars in the middle east, no drones and lost lives (she doesn't care as long as it is not American lives) and more conflict with other countries such as China (the worst trump may do is a trade war, which is fine). More importantly, wall street and its greedy bosses will be richer and richer because she has no intention of reversing that (at least trump wants to change that).
I know many Clinton voters voted for him to avoid trump, which is fine. but don't pretend for a second that a clinton administration will be better for Americans and the world. It is the attitude that we democrats are so much better than you rednecks who dont know anything but hate and bigotry that disgusts me, and that's probably why trump won.
And it doesn't seem many are learning the lesson. They still think they are superior. They still think there is something wrong with the outcome of the election. trump's win is NOT due to hatred of its supporters. It is an ultimate reflection the failure of how for years the "progressive" liberals with their pretentious agenda fail to connect with real Americans other than the intellectuals and large city dwellers who benefited from the system.
The outcome of an election is NEVER wrong, because that is how it is designed and how it should be. What is wrong is always the losing sides policy and strategies.
Catgirl; what you're seeking to understand from this one cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called logic.
Very few of us can understand the polarized silliness that resorts to petty childish name calling and spurious categorizing of their fellow citizens as "snivelling snowflakes" based merely upon political leanings.
These types have no understanding of their fellows fighting in any number of wars, actually putting their lives on the line, probably voted in equal measure for both parties. These types cannot grasp the concept of opposing views making a country healthier by their very nature as stated in any number of ways by those forefathers in their various writings.
A violent society will only get more so until this petty bickering over ideologies misunderstood but entrenched, gets some serious rational and reasoned discussion instead of what comes out of the likes of Trump's mouth to a pandering mass of idiots that lust to hear more of what they've come to take as indicative of "strength."
These types think of themselves as the only ones with backbones while history down through the ages has proven them to be merely .........the ones with big mouths and small brains.
Glad we can at least talk about thing more rationally, instead of dismissing each other like a bunch of hotheaded teenagers (you voted for trump, you must be either racist or retard!)
in terms of foreign policy, Clinton is very very bad. For some reason this woman just loves wars. what is more disgraceful is that she later blames someone else for her decision.
I am certain most Trump voters don't vote for him out of hatred of minoritie, no matter how some people stretch it. they have their own legitimate concerns which I explained several times. It is very wrong and arrogant to dismiss these people all as racists or rednecks. The assumption that democrats are morally superior is just laughable.
you spoke of mob mentality. well, who are exatly rioting on the streets, burning cars and smashing windows because they don't like the outcome of a democratic election? I am not sure if the hatred of which camp against the other is stronger, but let's say neither is that great. DID Sanders supports riot on the street learning their candidate was basically ripped of the chance to run by the system? did trump supports protest on the street again all the trump demonization, completely unfair and unobjective treatment as well as outright lies spread by the US media?
OK, regarding hate, tell him who did Trump tell us to hate. Did he really encourage us to hate people because they are latinos, or gays? He apparently hates illegal immigrants - well, I do too as a racial minority. If tomorrow politicians in canada proposes to crack down illegal chinese immigrants, I will be totally supportive. My position is not determined by my race, or how it might affect the Chinese people in Canada, rather, as a voter and citizen, I only care about whether the policy is right or not. So what's wrong with deporting no matter how many illegal immigrants? I just don't know. If I sneak into the US and stays illegally, I will be deported, will you sympathize me? What's different for the millions of illegal latinos?
I would say the decision of previous governments not to deport them is wrong. You either change the law by making them legal, or abide by the law by deporting them. not doing anything, that's wrong. And how does that turn into a racism issue? If it were an illegal from sweden, he should be deported too. The fact that it will impact the hispanic population changes nothing.
Destroying anyone who opposes him... where the hell did you get that from? is there any facts behind it at all?? I don't know how many people just form the opinion that trump is a tyrant, dictator or even fascist. It becomes so ridiculous that it seems one can throw any bad words toward him, anything they want, without knowing what those words mean.
One thing that i agree with you is that trump's campaign did unleash the hated and bigotry among certain people, and that's the most serious consequence of this whole thing. But for one, trump himself didn't express such hatred, it is those people's interpretation. two, unfortunately that's what it takes to beat Clinton. If he didn't adopted such tactics, he wouldn't have won. Blame the election or the voters, not the candidate, who did everything by the law. And third, if Clinton is elected, what will happen? more wars in the middle east, no drones and lost lives (she doesn't care as long as it is not American lives) and more conflict with other countries such as China (the worst trump may do is a trade war, which is fine). More importantly, wall street and its greedy bosses will be richer and richer because she has no intention of reversing that (at least trump wants to change that).
I know many Clinton voters voted for him to avoid trump, which is fine. but don't pretend for a second that a clinton administration will be better for Americans and the world. It is the attitude that we democrats are so much better than you rednecks who dont know anything but hate and bigotry that disgusts me, and that's probably why trump won.
And it doesn't seem many are learning the lesson. They still think they are superior. They still think there is something wrong with the outcome of the election. trump's win is NOT due to hatred of its supporters. It is an ultimate reflection the failure of how for years the "progressive" liberals with their pretentious agenda fail to connect with real Americans other than the intellectuals and large city dwellers who benefited from the system.
The outcome of an election is NEVER wrong, because that is how it is designed and how it should be. What is wrong is always the losing sides policy and strategies.
You are to be commended for taking the time to right this post. Thank you.
Your hypothetical mall scenario is completely fallacious when you use it to draw an inevitable conclusion.
No, I draw the conclusion I was expecting all along...
Quote:
You are not indicating acceptance of any viewpoint other than your own with the use of adjectives such as "rant", "hysteria", and "rhetoric" attached to describing those.
The rant and hysteria is from the ones that think America is such a dangerous society where you have a high probability to get shot...there is such hysteria, very much so
Quote:
Having the ability to carry is one thing. Having the desire to for whatever reason is quite another. No it's not silly to suggest that there are many more societies that would claim it indicative of a failure than there are would laud it as progress. It's "silly" to suggest otherwise.
There are no logic reasoning to consider it a "failure"...however, your opinion.
Quote:
I'm not in any way "judging" your society as failed by stating Canadians would judge theirs being in a state of failure should the carrying of a firearm become a prudent option.
There are a lot of Canadians that would like more relaxed firearm legislation, do not kid yourself.
Quote:
you really should stop erecting those strawmen as fast as you can. You keep going back and repeating the incorrect conclusions you've arrived at in prior discussions as though they were irrefutable fact though proven wrong.
I did not erect any "strawman"....simply you would like to have a gun with you if you happen to get shot at..pure and simple...so do not judge a "failure" the willingness of someone to carry a firearm..
Quote:
I'll stop mentioning what a majority of people other than Americans know and take for fact that with the highest incarceration rate of the entire world housing no less than 22 % of the entire world's prisoner population, the lowest literacy rate of the developed world with 32 million of you unable to read or write and fully 21% of you not able to do so above 5th grade level, the degree of racial strife and it's attendant riots along with the now violent protests over an election result requiring even more stocks of tear gas to be used, added to that the yearly deaths by firearms..... Your society is not in a state of failure ........you're just misunderstood.
..there you go hysteria again...we totally agree on the incarceration rate, I'll give you that....thanks to the stupid "war on drug"....
The US has a peculiar history and unfortunately the legacy of mass slavery that Canada luckily did not have (you got spared the ghetto culture that unfortunately permeate many inner cities) not to mention sharing a border with a developing country with years of almost out of control illegal immigration (guess what, the illegal immigrants are among the ones more likely to suffer at the margin of society, decades of political pandering has brought this situation to a boiling point).
Racial and political riots?? At least these are more serious motivation than rioting and destroying property for sport reason like it happened in super civilized Vancouver....
No, I draw the conclusion I was expecting all along...
The rant and hysteria is from the ones that think America is such a dangerous society where you have a high probability to get shot...there is such hysteria, very much so
There are no logic reasoning to consider it a "failure"...however, your opinion.
There are a lot of Canadians that would like more relaxed firearm legislation, do not kid yourself.
I did not erect any "strawman"....simply you would like to have a gun with you if you happen to get shot at..pure and simple...so do not judge a "failure" the willingness of someone to carry a firearm..
..there you go hysteria again...we totally agree on the incarceration rate, I'll give you that....thanks to the stupid "war on drug"....
The US has a peculiar history and unfortunately the legacy of mass slavery that Canada luckily did not have (you got spared the ghetto culture that unfortunately permeate many inner cities) not to mention sharing a border with a developing country with years of almost out of control illegal immigration (guess what, the illegal immigrants are among the ones more likely to suffer at the margin of society, decades of political pandering has brought this situation to a boiling point).
Racial and political riots?? At least these are more serious motivation than rioting and destroying property for sport reason like it happened in super civilized Vancouver....
Aah; more of the same; no surprise there.
Of course it was expected. You're the one who proposed it as an inevitability as the result of a hypothetical so you could hardly expect otherwise ...linear thinking Sat, linear thinking.
Once again I did not judge it a "failure". I "suggested" the majority of Canadians would judge there being a failure if their societal norms lowered to the extent they felt carrying one was prudent.
That's the last time I respond to a repeated strawman conclusion by attempting to describe the distinction to you.
Canada avoiding the slavery legacy has not been historically described as due to luck by any intelligent source.
Hysteria:
"a psychological disorder (not now regarded as a single definite condition) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior. The term has a controversial history as it was formerly regarded as a disease specific to women."
How does that even begin to describe my post rebutting yours by doing nothing more than stating actual indisputable facts?
Of course it was expected. You're the one who proposed it as an inevitability as the result of a hypothetical so you could hardly expect otherwise ...linear thinking Sat, linear thinking.
Feel free to engage in all the verbal acrobatics you want...more of the same indeed...it is an inevitability that you would choose to use a gun in that hypothetical situation...period.
Quote:
Once again I did not judge it a "failure". I "suggested" the majority of Canadians would judge there being a failure if their societal norms lowered to the extent they felt carrying one was prudent.
Is not a matter of considering it prudent or not...it is a matter to be free to do so if you want to....something you do not seem to grasp...but it's ok...nor is a "lowering of societal norms".
I have a CCP...I do not carry that often......I do not feel threatened when I go out nor feel that way the vast majority of CCP holders....sometime I feel like carrying some other times I don't....it is my choice not a government choice, that is the whole point....you can carry a small pistol with the same ease as carrying a smartphone.
Quote:
Canada avoiding the slavery legacy has not been historically described as due to luck by any intelligent source.
I never said that Canada avoided that "by luck"....try to read what I said....I said luckily it avoided that dark chapter...big difference...
Feel free to engage in all the verbal acrobatics you want...more of the same indeed...it is an inevitability that you would choose to use a gun in that hypothetical situation...period.
Is not a matter of considering it prudent or not...it is a matter to be free to do so if you want to....something you do not seem to grasp...but it's ok...nor is a "lowering of societal norms".
I have a CCP...I do not carry that often......I do not feel threatened when I go out nor feel that way the vast majority of CCP holders....sometime I feel like carrying some other times I don't....it is my choice not a government choice, that is the whole point....you can carry a small pistol with the same ease as carrying a smartphone.
I never said that Canada avoided that "by luck"....try to read what I said....I said luckily it avoided that dark chapter...big difference...
I'm a Canadian; I always "feel free" regardless if given permission or not.
I would choose to use a gun as I would the parachute in the very remote possibility I ever fell out of that airplane I previously mentioned; and it's still not an inevitable conclusion because its still a remote hypothetical and therefore I still won't wear one.
The ethic and point still not grasped, is accepting that for a significant number of the world's population the freedom to carry a firearm along with the subsequent desire to do so, would be considered a "lowering" of their societal norms of it not being in the slightest way needed or wanted..
Prudent: "acting with or showing care and thought for the future." So in this context; most of you aren't carrying when you choose to due to being "prudent"; you're simply carrying to counter balance the weight of ten rolls of quarters in your other pocket? How 'bout just putting five rolls in each pocket?
As to your comment about government choice versus citizen choice....you do realize that citizen desire is why strict firearms controls exist in Canada, or do you not?
And lastly; what you said was "The US has a peculiar history and unfortunately the legacy of mass slavery that Canada luckily did not have." It might have been fortuitous but that was by design. You don't describe a result sought after as being in any way associated with luck. Instead, you could have said "Canada wisely avoided that legacy."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
