Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
There is nothing rebellious about wanting to keep the second amendment intact. Its in fact just a representation of conservatism and the willingness to keep the status co alive and well and not create deep change int the society.
People might riot indeed. But that won't be because of a rebellious mindset, it will be because of the desire to keep their priviledges intact.
"The rebels" if there really needs to be such a faction, are those who opposes the established system and institution. Its those who understand that the constitution must be changed.
Rebels are those who are laughed at or casted out by society, its those who are considered the real danger by institutions compared to the far right.
You are comparing salads and steaks, its completely fallacious.The first part of your sentence should make you understand that the situation of gun in the US is not normal.
Of course it is.
That's again a fallacious rethoric that implies basically that because someone screams too loudly, then its their fault if people don't listen to them. This is a common sexist rethoric that feminist women face. The reality is that climatosceptiscism and gun's advocatism are in a all time high and people just don't want to listen AT ALL at those who are screaming "danger" to them because they are lead to believe the opposite BY conservative NEWS medias
Usually people who are for gun control don't explain that the subject is "overrated" because they understand how abnormal the number of shootings in the US is.
Nop
Annnnnd that's what I explained here:
This is the common liberal/conservative myth that "people are responsible for their action therefore we shouldn't deresponsibize them by changing the system too much"
Mixed with the common gun lobbyist vision that "people will find a way anyway".
When in reality both those assertion are fallacious and in denial of reality. Responsibilizing people only negate the impact society has on people and people (here we are talking about kids who goes on shooting spree) will most likely won't try another way if we prevent them from getting a gun in the first place. This would be the point of this dissuasion barrier.
This doesn't fix all the problems, but it will prevent a lot.
Its fallacious because the number of victim are not the F*cking same. Is that so hard to understand ?
As long as it is EXTREMMELY WELL REGULATED I don't see the problem with that.
Coming from a conspirationnist background, I spend a lot of time trying to understand how radicalization works.
(I'm talking here about a radicalization that leads to terrorist attacks)
People don't radicalize because they are monsters or because they want to do evil (those become liberal politicians) people radicalize because they are angry, because they want to make a difference, sometimes (in case of far right terrorism) because they are not seeing their victim as humans anymore or because they came to the conclusion that taking lives is a price to pay.
In all cases, they think they are doing the right thing.
There is no lie when I'm talking about liberals and their love for the status co.
Are guns as necessary as cars ?
People might riot indeed. But that won't be because of a rebellious mindset, it will be because of the desire to keep their priviledges intact.
"The rebels" if there really needs to be such a faction, are those who opposes the established system and institution. Its those who understand that the constitution must be changed.
Rebels are those who are laughed at or casted out by society, its those who are considered the real danger by institutions compared to the far right.
You are comparing salads and steaks, its completely fallacious.The first part of your sentence should make you understand that the situation of gun in the US is not normal.
Of course it is.
That's again a fallacious rethoric that implies basically that because someone screams too loudly, then its their fault if people don't listen to them. This is a common sexist rethoric that feminist women face. The reality is that climatosceptiscism and gun's advocatism are in a all time high and people just don't want to listen AT ALL at those who are screaming "danger" to them because they are lead to believe the opposite BY conservative NEWS medias
Usually people who are for gun control don't explain that the subject is "overrated" because they understand how abnormal the number of shootings in the US is.
Nop
Annnnnd that's what I explained here:
This is the common liberal/conservative myth that "people are responsible for their action therefore we shouldn't deresponsibize them by changing the system too much"
Mixed with the common gun lobbyist vision that "people will find a way anyway".
When in reality both those assertion are fallacious and in denial of reality. Responsibilizing people only negate the impact society has on people and people (here we are talking about kids who goes on shooting spree) will most likely won't try another way if we prevent them from getting a gun in the first place. This would be the point of this dissuasion barrier.
This doesn't fix all the problems, but it will prevent a lot.
Its fallacious because the number of victim are not the F*cking same. Is that so hard to understand ?
As long as it is EXTREMMELY WELL REGULATED I don't see the problem with that.
Coming from a conspirationnist background, I spend a lot of time trying to understand how radicalization works.
(I'm talking here about a radicalization that leads to terrorist attacks)
People don't radicalize because they are monsters or because they want to do evil (those become liberal politicians) people radicalize because they are angry, because they want to make a difference, sometimes (in case of far right terrorism) because they are not seeing their victim as humans anymore or because they came to the conclusion that taking lives is a price to pay.
In all cases, they think they are doing the right thing.
There is no lie when I'm talking about liberals and their love for the status co.
Are guns as necessary as cars ?
Last edited:
No surprised I will say hehe
There is a lot of fallacious rethoric going on in this thread.
There is no reason to add multiple words when a simple one already describes perfectly what you guys are constantly saying mate
The fact that you need to attack my language skills to keep making points is a proof of that.
:cheers:
There is a lot of fallacious rethoric going on in this thread.
You can tell when he adds a word to its limited and fallacious vocabulary because he spams it.
Fallacious.
Fallacious.
The fact that you need to attack my language skills to keep making points is a proof of that.
:cheers:
worst gen is a random forum dude, it aint the status quo
if you went on cnn or bbc, you probably would be pretty well liked
besides if you wanna argue on behalf of this place and say look it's far right they dislike me
well you call me far right and they also dislike me carrot so tell me, Are they far right for hating another far right dude???
we both are pretty disliked here, you cause you say far left shit that disagrees with even some of the liberal people here and im disliked cause of my takes on woman
it's not cause this is a far left haven or a far right one, it's just that me and you have certain takes these people dont like/
think the only thing, we have stated dislike on is rich people,anti trans and abortionists
im pro freedom which might piss off some hardcore right wingers
Oh really ??
You think they would allow me to say that there coverage of the Isralian-Palestinian war is completely biased ? You think they would let me say that Biden is complicit in a genocide ? You think that they would let me say that liberal and confusionnist and scoop angry media like them are the reason for the rise of the far right and the late election of Trump the insurectionnist ?
You think they would let me say that ??
Sure, people are disliking you so much that all they do is read your message. I had to demonstrated how people here were silent in front of your rethoric to finally see a rise of criticism against your incel like argumentation.
Dude.. the worst ennemy of the far right is the far right.
Why do you think white christian supremacist are hating so much on muslim foundamentalist ?
Both are far right, yet they hate each others.
No, it just that it is a place where toxic people are allowed to talk and their behavior enabled. That's all.
You think they would allow me to say that there coverage of the Isralian-Palestinian war is completely biased ? You think they would let me say that Biden is complicit in a genocide ? You think that they would let me say that liberal and confusionnist and scoop angry media like them are the reason for the rise of the far right and the late election of Trump the insurectionnist ?
You think they would let me say that ??
Sure, people are disliking you so much that all they do is read your message. I had to demonstrated how people here were silent in front of your rethoric to finally see a rise of criticism against your incel like argumentation.
Dude.. the worst ennemy of the far right is the far right.
Why do you think white christian supremacist are hating so much on muslim foundamentalist ?
Both are far right, yet they hate each others.
No, it just that it is a place where toxic people are allowed to talk and their behavior enabled. That's all.