War with Syria

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,028
138,800
Tanoomba_sl said:
Shit, why stop at gun? Why not give everyone a nuclear bomb?
Click to expand...
You're literally trying as hard as you can to straw man and break a point of view by being as ridiculous as possible, however to illustrate the concept of balancing power, The Russians obtaining nuclear weapons after the US developed nuclear weapons most likely prevented world war 3.

wouldn't you automatically say that the Russians getting nuclear weapons would be a bad thing? by your logic it would but in reality it acted as a deterrent because the consequences of one parties actions where suddenly no longer beyond reproach, it's specifically because there was mutually assured destruction and a balance of power that a third world war was prevented.

There's 300 million guns in america, by the logic that it's the guns that kill people there should be hundreds of thousands of murders each year and america should lead the world in murder per capital but it doesn't. It's not the availability of weapons that's the point, it's the mindset of the people, and when that mindset is hell bent on raping robbing or murdering what the hell are you going to do about it when one of those mindsets comes after you?
 
zzeris

zzeris

King Turd of Shit Hill
<Gold Donor>
20,651
88,469
fanaskin_sl said:
Seriously you got the main point of the concept backwards somehow, literally you missed the whole point. rethink it and try again. not everyone is born with equal physical ability.
would this 10 year old boy be able to defeat an attacker armed with a sword, if he was armed with a sword?



rrr_img_43049.jpg

rrr_img_43050.jpg
rrr_img_43051.jpg
rrr_img_43052.jpg
rrr_img_43055.jpg
rrr_img_43056.jpg
Click to expand...
rrr_img_43057.png


Yes...yes he could.
 
TrollfaceDeux

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
going back to medieval age should solve all these issues.


#FIRSTWORLDPROBLEM

You're literally trying as hard as you can to straw man and break a point of view by being as ridiculous as possible, however to illustrate the concept of balancing power, The Russians obtaining nuclear weapons after the US developed nuclear weapons most likely prevented world war 3.
Click to expand...
Slippery Slope argument 101.

"Why stop at gay marriage? Why not animals? rats? art? tools? games?"

I can't believe i read that shit tonight though. I should go wash my eyes
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,028
138,800
dude the zulu's never evolved beyond spears to make machine guns for themselves, that totally protected them from the british right? all the zulu's had to do was tell the most educated society in the world at the time that education was the key to civil discourse.
 
Lleauaric

Lleauaric

Sparkletot Monger
4,058
1,822
fanaskin_sl said:
dude the zulu's never evolved beyond spears to make machine guns for themselves, that totally protected them from the british right? all the zulu's had to do was tell the most educated society in the world at the time that education was the key to civil discourse.
Click to expand...
Two different arguments. Are you arguing guns are the protector of individual rights from their government, or that guns make Red Dawn fantasies possible?
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,028
138,800
all of the above, it's a concept that can scale easily from individual encounters to nation states warring and everything in between, if you can't push back(as a group or individual) with force when "rule of law" won't protect you then you risk perishing like the zulu's, being raped like a single mother in a dark alley, or having your civil rights (and ultimately their lives) taken from you by authority like the Armenians.
 
Arbitrary

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
29,883
83,281
Dude, a major part of our foreign policy is arming people so they can make their own Red Dawn (flavored for their ethnicity) fantasies possible. That shitworks.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
fanaskin_sl said:
You're literally trying as hard as you can to straw man and break a point of view by being as ridiculous as possible, however to illustrate the concept of balancing power, The Russians obtaining nuclear weapons after the US developed nuclear weapons most likely prevented world war 3.

wouldn't you automatically say that the Russians getting nuclear weapons would be a bad thing? by your logic it would but in reality it acted as a deterrent because the consequences of one parties actions where suddenly no longer beyond reproach, it's specifically because there was mutually assured destruction and a balance of power that a third world war was prevented.

There's 300 million guns in america, by the logic that it's the guns that kill people there should be hundreds of thousands of murders each year and america should lead the world in murder per capital but it doesn't. It's not the availability of weapons that's the point, it's the mindset of the people, and when that mindset is hell bent on raping robbing or murdering what the hell are you going to do about it when one of those mindsets comes after you?
Click to expand...
Dude, I'm not trying that hard. I asked you an actual question: Where do you draw your line? Guns? What kind of guns? Semi-automatics? Fully automatics? Bazookas? Rocket launchers? Anti-aircraft guns? At what point do we decide that what one person can possess for their own protection poses too much of a threat to society as a whole? So you're telling me America doesn't lead the world in murders per capital because of guns? That's great. How does America do in terms of accidental gun deaths compared to other countries? Is that just a sad, but acceptable consequence for this great "equalizer"?

fanaskin_sl said:
all of the above, it's a concept that can scale easily from individual encounters to nation states warring and everything in between, if you can't push back(as a group or individual) with force when "rule of law" won't protect you then you risk perishing like the zulu's, being raped like a single mother in a dark alley, or having your civil rights (and ultimately their lives) taken from you by authority like the Armenians.
Click to expand...
Oh, come on. If the "rule of law" won't protect you then most of us are pretty fucked whether or not we have guns. Once law doesn't apply, the most immoral and despicable among us will thrive. Better to focus on what causes these wars in the first place and work on reducing that, than trying to arm everyone for when things go to shit. See, the thing about this whole gun argument is that one side acknowledges that those against you will do every despicable thing possible to have the upper hand on you so you might as well be ready to fuck them over first. I don't like that argument. I think we can do better. I think we can reduce the likelihood of anyone wanting to fuck you over simply by reducing the circumstances that lead to that kind of decision. Making sure anybody can kill anybody else is not the solution to our problems.
 
Erronius

Erronius

<WoW Guild Officer>
<Gold Donor>
17,319
44,965
fanaskin_sl said:
all of the above, it's a concept that can scale easily from individual encounters to nation states warring and everything in between, if you can't push back(as a group or individual) with force when "rule of law" won't protect you then you risk perishing like the zulu's, being raped like a single mother in a dark alley, or having your civil rights (and ultimately their lives) taken from you by authority like the Armenians.
Click to expand...
That's a whole lot of fearmongering squeezed into one sentence.

What has always amazed me is how firearms are treated differently depending on the circumstances. After a shooting or a massacre like Newton, what you hear are things like"guns don't kill people, people kill people". But when you have discussions like this, suddenly firearms have an almost magical quality, you can't have freedom w/o them, everyone needs a gun to be equal, firearms prevent crime, etc. It's like guns are only a tool and people are to blame only when guns are directly under attack - at any other time, guns are venerated to the point that gun worship in our culture should really be considered it's own religion.

I'm a gun owner but I almost never carry; there isn't really any need. Most murders and rapes are between people that know each other and I don't think anyone I know wants to kill me or rape me RL, and any random murderer (which is statistically pretty rare) could kill me by surprise anyways. I don't habitually walk in bad neighborhoods after dark with my pockets bulging with cash, and I don't live in perpetual fear that the gubmint is going to kick in my door to take my guns. And if for some reason law enforcement does kick in my door, I'm not about to go scrambling for a firearm and get myself killed by living out some fantasy of resistance against an imagined police state - I'm not a criminal and I can work it out afterwards.

I don't know where all of this fear has come from; I don't remember it when I was a kid. I was taught how to use a gun and taught how dangerous they could be, but they were still just a tool. And when it comes to ensuring freedom, I mean ok, own a gun. But you can feel safe and lock it up - we'll all have plenty of notice when the revolution happens. I don't see the need for everyone to walk around with handguns, and frankly the increasing number of people with CCWs that then feel invincible and are more willing to enter into armed conflict with others makes me feel much less safe. We've managed to build up a society where we don't have to walk around like we're in some sort of Mad Max movie, so I've always been a bit mystified that some people feel so INCREDIBLY unsafe that they want to walk around like they're working as a security contractor in Iraq.
 
Erronius

Erronius

<WoW Guild Officer>
<Gold Donor>
17,319
44,965
fanaskin_sl said:
what fantasy world do you live in that you can't be killed by somebody?
Click to expand...
What fantasy world do you live in that the odds of someone trying to attack you with potentially lethal levels of violence is so high that you must be armed at all times? When I was a soldier I wasn't even armed at all times, and there were times we carried our rifles but weren't given ammo. So explain to me how your life is so much more hazardous than a soldiers that you must be prepared for an attack at all times?

fanaskin_sl said:
fear mongering is what you're doing by saying people can't be trusted to protect themselves.
Click to expand...
Where did I say that? Or is this you imagining things?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.