Lurker > nicklebro

averagejoel posted...

nicklebro posted...

I don't see any actual relevant liberal parties in the US that aren't on the left. Can you point me towards any? Cuz I'm referring to parties that actually exist, not just parties that exist solely as ideas.

the Democratic Party is not on the left, and if you think they are, then you are objectively incorrect

lol oh ok.

NinjaBreakfast posted...

nicklebro posted...

I don't see any actual relevant liberal parties in the US that aren't on the left. Can you point me towards any? Cuz I'm referring to parties that actually exist, not just parties that exist solely as ideas.

Weird how you guys have to keep deflecting since no one has been able to actually respond to my challenge. Lol what am I talking about? Of course it isn't weird, this is what happens in literally every single topic like this.

Antifar posted...

https://mobile.twitter.com/jbporcleric

Two funny posts :)

Weird how right after getting called out for deflecting, this is the best you can come up with.

Idk how many times I've asked just to be shown what you saw that swayed your opinion on Jordan Peterson. Why can't anyone just do that? If you just don't like the guy, then just say that. Don't act as if your disdain for him is rooted in anything rational, it just makes you look silly when you get called out on it, like you have been ITT.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Look at these apologists itt. We can't have statues today of past american heroes because they might have been racist, but it's totally cool to get married on a freaking plantation even though the history and meaning of a plantation is dark and points to a terrible time in our past.

American heroes? You mean literal traitors that took up arms against America? Jesus man...

And yes its totally cool to get married on a plantation because it no longer has anything to do with its slave past.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2018/02/ryan-reynolds-black-panther-praise

Basically he tweeted some praise for the Black Panther movie and some idiotic trolls asserted that since the location he hosted his wedding at used to be a plantation, that somehow makes him a racist and he's not allowed to speak about anything having to do with black people. I really hope no one defends this idiocy and I don't need to explain how stupid this story is.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

I don't see any actual relevant liberal parties in the US that aren't on the left. Can you point me towards any? Cuz I'm referring to parties that actually exist, not just parties that exist solely as ideas.

Weird how you guys have to keep deflecting since no one has been able to actually respond to my challenge. Lol what am I talking about? Of course it isn't weird, this is what happens in literally every single topic like this.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

I'm not surprised no Trump supporters have responded to this topic.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Anteaterking posted...

nicklebro posted...

Again, I have yet to see any proof that what he's saying isn't accurate. And I'm not even saying that you're wrong about that, I'm just asking you to tell me what he's saying that is wrong.

Once you acknowledge that his citations are irrelevant to what he's talking about, you're left with statements that don't really have truth values.

Are you saying that you want me to show "God must exist because we need a creator" is false? The first part doesn't follow from the second, but I'm not able to prove God doesn't exist.

I gave you a disproof for "Moral systems have to share attributes with axiomatic systems" already.

If he's wrong about the psychology of "why to clean your room", it might still be the case that it is "right" to clean your room, but there's just no real content there.

You just can't have it both ways. You can't give his arguments and positions weight by saying that he's an academic/intellectual, and then say that it doesn't matter if those arguments are valid because he's still right.

I didn't know he said "God must exist because we need a creator", if those were indeed his words, then that's definitely something I disagree with him on. But something tells me you're either making that up or misunderstanding something he said, because he's talked at length about belief in god, what it means to believe, what a god actually is. You seem to be painting him into a corner of being your run of the mill Christian, if you were to actually research the subject you'd see that that couldn't be further from the case. Its why I said you're misunderstanding his previous statement where he invoked Godel, and that's why I still disagree with you on that topic.

But aside from the religious aspect for a second, you're kinda jumping around in this post and took a massive leap when you just threw out "If he's wrong about the psychology of "why to clean your room"" which is a perfect example of the issue I continue to run into with Peterson detractors. For some reason a lot of people seem to think that if they can prove anything Peterson's said to be false or even just technically inaccurate, that that's all you need to justify completely trashing his philosophy and even question his understanding of psychology as a whole. This is what happens when you try to assess someone's work when you have an agenda. You grasp for the first debatable line you can find and then cling to it, building up its importance, claiming that it is the cornerstone of the entire argument and no further discussion is necessary. Its why you see people here doing some deep research on lobsters after Peterson mentioned them, they just get tunnel vision and don't realize that they're nitpicking a line that's tangential at best.

And I really don't understand the end of your post, I haven't claimed anything about Peterson or said any of the things you posted, all I've done is ask for someone to show me what convinced them that Peterson was a fraud or a phony and not worth listening to. I mean the dude has been a professor at Harvard and University of Toronto, so its one thing to claim that the guy just doesn't resonate with you or say anything that interests you, but the Peterson haters here obviously have to push everything to the extreme and make these absurd accusations, and I really am just trying to understand what it is that makes people not like him. From my own observations, a lot of it seems to be misinformation. I've seen him accused of being a transphobe, blaming women for sexual harassment, being part of the alt right, lol hell I've even see someone claim that he argued men should be allowed to beat women. None of that is even close to true.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Nobody asked you.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Why do you hate people who listen to him?
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

No one has said that it can't be used that way, because it can. The debate is over whether it will or not.

But you do acknowledge that a law has been passed right? So what's your explanation for no one being punished by it? Is it just a pointless law that doesn't actually do anything to anyone? Lol see how silly it is to claim that if something doesn't immediately happen, then it is impossible to happen?

But yeah, even if he's wrong, so what? I really don't understand your passionate hatred for the man.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

But really dude, even if we just assume that Peterson was wrong about this, so what? Why does that make you hate him so much?
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Well duh, the law was passed less than a year ago, it'd take a while for a person to even get to the point that they could find themselves facing jail time. And you do know that even Peterson acknowledges that that would only arise if someone refused to pay a fine or some other court order, so the crime would actually be contempt of court right?

It seems like you're looking for jail sentences in the actual Bill C 16, that's not how it works. Bill C16 opens up the possibility for this to happen, since "gender identity" and "gender expression" were purposely not defined in the bill. The argument has always been that Bill C 16 leaves open the possibility of compelled speech due to its shoddy writing. I thought you knew this.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

But you're sure that doesn't apply to you?
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Idk man, I'm not a lawyer. But Peterson is far from the only person saying this, and that proves that its at least a debate.

Pretty sure that your bias is filling in the rest.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Why can't anyone have a conversation about this guy without getting so emotional? I've literally been asking the same questions for how long now and you're just getting mad that I'm not just agreeing with you.

Lol I mean you're literally claiming that you know for a fact that not only is Peterson wrong about C16, but he knew he was wrong and intentionally lied about it. You haven't proved the former, let alone the latter. And I don't think Peterson really talks about C16 very much anymore, but obviously if you don't actually listen to what he has to say its hard to know that.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

The OHRC has produced a policy on gender identity and expression and what constitutes harassment and discrimination, including refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun.

Thereafter, the OHRC clarified its policy by creating a Question and Answer on gender identity and gender expression which seeks to define these terms, and to set out that the refusal of a person to use the chosen/personal/preferred pronoun, or deliberately misgendering, will likely be discrimination.

What this means is that if you encounter a person in a sphere of human activity covered by the Code, and you address that person by a pronoun that is not the chosen/personal/or preferred pronoun of that person, that your action can constitute discrimination.

Further, in the event that your personal or religious beliefs do not recognize genders beyond simply male and female (ie. does not recognize non-binary, gender neutral, or other identities), you must still utilize the non-binary, gender neutral, or other pronouns required by non-binary or gender neutral persons, lest you be found to be discriminatory.

https://litigationguy.wordpress.com/2016/12/24/bill-c-16-whats-the-big-deal/

Seems pretty straightforward to me...
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

lderivedx posted...

nicklebro posted...

Cuz I've followed the developments on Bill C16 and I don't see where you could say he lied.

Uh huh.

It's not "compelling" you to use someone's preferred pronouns, for one.

Ok well from what I've read, it is. Can you prove that? I'm not a lawyer so I obviously can't claim any kind of authority on the subject.

And if this is true, I don't think that'd be Peterson lying, I think that'd just be him being wrong.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

averagejoel posted...

nicklebro posted...

anything of actual substance that I can see?

well there's plenty in post 120, but you dismissed the entire thing

There's literally no substance whatsoever in that post. Seriously, even if what you were saying was actually true, you didn't actually include any substance. Saying "Jordan Peterson was wrong" isn't substance, even if he was in fact wrong. You have to actually show what he was lying about, y'know actual substance.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

lderivedx posted...

nicklebro posted...

What did he lie about?

Well, C16 for starters. He doesn't get much right in the way of lobsters, either.

Ok can you outline those lies? Cuz I've followed the developments on Bill C16 and I don't see where you could say he lied.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Bio1590 posted...

nicklebro posted...

Bio1590 posted...

Dude

Even Proudclad has given up shilling for Peterson.

Think about that

Pretty sure that's a good sign that I'm on the right track lol. And again, no one has shown me anything to suggest that Peterson is some sort of fraud. If you have something I'd seriously like to see it, so far its just been people like this guy saying he's wrong because they say he's wrong. Or nitpicking some irrelevant detail, and doing a bad job at that.

No, it's a terrible sign.

So agreeing with Proudclad is good? I'm not sure what your argument is. Regardless, I don't base my beliefs on what Proudclad thinks, so do you have anything of actual substance that I can see?

Really guys, if Peterson did or said something to make me question his integrity, I'd like to know. Like sincerely. So maybe stop trying to convince me and just show me what convinced you?
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

averagejoel posted...

still waiting on your supposed evidence that Peterson is left-leaning

k

lderivedx posted...

"It doesn't matter that he lied, you're just missing the meaning of what he says" is a weird defense of someone who says one should speak precisely, but then does anything but.

JP is 100% a right-winger. He even says he's a classical liberal.

Also any time someone who isn't in math or logic brings up Goedel, they're doing it to talk about things they don't understand.

What did he lie about?
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

averagejoel posted...

nicklebro posted...

averagejoel posted...

nicklebro posted...

You seem to have very little knowledge of Peterson in general, from your ignorance on Bill C16 to his stance on transgender people to his knowledge on Marxism and post modernism. Instead of demanding I do your homework for you, why don't you just listen to him and see what he actually has to say rather than just believing whatever you've read about him online. You might just learn something.

are you going to address anything I actually said or do you concede?

Did you not see me call out your blatant ignorance? Are you going to display a modicum of knowledge about anything you just mentioned and prove you're even worth responding to? I mean you said so much wrong in so short a span that I can't imagine this conversation going very far if I have to stop to explain everything to you every post.

you attempted to argue that Peterson was left-leaning. I gave you multiple examples, several of which are directly from your source, which makes me doubt this conclusion. I concisely explained why that video did not support your conclusion that Peterson was left-leaning.

you claim that this guy's ideas are so great, yet you don't even seem to know anything about him.

O ok, thank you for your opinion.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Bio1590 posted...

Dude

Even Proudclad has given up shilling for Peterson.

Think about that

Pretty sure that's a good sign that I'm on the right track lol. And again, no one has shown me anything to suggest that Peterson is some sort of fraud. If you have something I'd seriously like to see it, so far its just been people like this guy saying he's wrong because they say he's wrong. Or nitpicking some irrelevant detail, and doing a bad job at that.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

averagejoel posted...

nicklebro posted...

You seem to have very little knowledge of Peterson in general, from your ignorance on Bill C16 to his stance on transgender people to his knowledge on Marxism and post modernism. Instead of demanding I do your homework for you, why don't you just listen to him and see what he actually has to say rather than just believing whatever you've read about him online. You might just learn something.

are you going to address anything I actually said or do you concede?

Did you not see me call out your blatant ignorance? Are you going to display a modicum of knowledge about anything you just mentioned and prove you're even worth responding to? I mean you said so much wrong in so short a span that I can't imagine this conversation going very far if I have to stop to explain everything to you every post.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

averagejoel posted...

nicklebro posted...

All forms of Liberalism are quite clearly on the left side of the political spectrum.

uh

no

this is blatantly incorrect, and I have no idea how this idea could even have occurred to you

And if you need one then sure, he supports universal healthcare.

this might be a decent start if he was American rather than Canadian, but it would still necessitate a lot more information than this.

if you want me to accept that he is left-leaning, I'm going to need many left-wing positions that he supports, and many right-wing positions that he condemns.

the fact that he's anti-collectivist, in my mind, inherently keeps him out of any leftist ideologies, so you're going to need all the more evidence for that.

the fact that he became famous for protesting against a transgender protection bill on the laughable notion that it would restrict free speech (another stereotypical right-wing "anti-PC/pro-Free Speech" position) is another strike against this idea.

in addition, he's a fucking university prof who has spoken at length about Marxism but has never, to my knowledge, done an actual deconstruction of the ideology, focusing instead on certain areas where the Soviet Union did bad things (and simultaneously giving cartoonish exaggerations of those bad things).

to top it all off, he's obviously aware that his audience is largely right-wing (at least, I hope he is). has he done anything specifically to disavow them beyond disavowing collectivist ideologies as a whole?

You seem to have very little knowledge of Peterson in general, from your ignorance on Bill C16 to his stance on transgender people to his knowledge on Marxism and post modernism. Instead of demanding I do your homework for you, why don't you just listen to him and see what he actually has to say rather than just believing whatever you've read about him online. You might just learn something.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

But really, even if this doesn't fit with Godel's work perfectly, you can still quite clearly understand the point he was making right? So really this does yet again seem to be more nitpicking while completely ignoring the actual point.

This goes back to the point that Balrog elegantly laid out:

Balrog0 posted...

as @COVxy has pointed out, for instance, his idea that we can learn things about hierarchy and such from lobster physiology is basically not true in any scientific sense whatsoever, but he and his followers don't actually care about that from what I can tell. The overall message he is trying to present is more meaningful to he and they than the factual accuracy of his supporting statements. He uses particular pieces of scientific information, but he does not employ them in a scientific way. His thinking has more in common with Joseph Campbell style mysticism (which is systematic, like Peterson is, but not at all scientific) than with philosophy or science.

You don't care that he bullshits academic sounding information into his points because you find meaning, or hope, in the underlying philosophy.

Again, I have yet to see any proof that what he's saying isn't accurate. And I'm not even saying that you're wrong about that, I'm just asking you to tell me what he's saying that is wrong.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Anteaterking posted...

nicklebro posted...

Take your pick.

http://archive.is/khKVm

This is nonsense. Godel's incompleteness theorems have nothing to do with the requirement of axioms, and there are certainly axiomatic systems that exist which do not require a God to exist (for example, Peano Arithmetic).

He follows this up sometime later with:
https://i.redditmedia.com/DePQF3Ssej79DxAwybWXdXGr0bEfFoi0qUECHd3UBjc.jpg?w=1024&s=151dda2bbdf6c08474455519f5d50622

This is again a complete misrepresentation of Godel's work, because in particular axioms are "provable" in the sense that within an axiomatic system F, if A_1 is an axiom, A_1 is trivially true within the system. Any logical system has to have axioms, because that is what makes it a logical system.

In addition, the requirements on F that are necessary preclude most mathematical logic systems (for example, Eucidean geometry is consistent AND complete), let alone anyone's moral systems (which tend not to be recursively axiomated).

So long story short, he's invoking Godel to make baby's first argument for God (the necessity of a creator to exist) seem like it has more weight behind it.

Just as a note, I don't want to leave you hanging if you have any additional questions on this, but I'll be out for a while. I'll do my best to address your comments later tonight.

This appears to stem from his weird definition of what "God" is. He actually adheres to a god of the gaps philosophy from the christian side, which is unique to say the least. But really, even if this doesn't fit with Godel's work perfectly, you can still quite clearly understand the point he was making right? So really this does yet again seem to be more nitpicking while completely ignoring the actual point.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

averagejoel posted...

nicklebro posted...

https://youtu.be/lhEG69ZGwUI?t=206

Just listen to the man himself.

he says he's a classic liberal. that is not a leftist ideology.

"hopefulness" does not make someone lean "to the left", and conscientiousness does not make someone lean "to the right"

again: which leftist ideas does he support, and which right-wing ideas does he condemn?

All forms of Liberalism are quite clearly on the left side of the political spectrum. And if you need one then sure, he supports universal healthcare.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

averagejoel posted...

enlighten me: which leftist ideas does he support, and which right-wing ideas has he condemned?

https://youtu.be/lhEG69ZGwUI?t=206

Just listen to the man himself.

Anteaterking posted...

You want me to explain which thing that is wrong? The Godel thing?

Take your pick.

averagejoel posted...

any good ideas from the right were co-opted from the left

lmao
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

averagejoel posted...

nicklebro posted...

Anteaterking posted...

nicklebro posted...

But for another liberal to point out the flaws and pitfalls of liberalism is eye opening and incredibly useful.

He describes himself as a "classical Liberal". Most historians consider modern liberalism to be disjoint from Locke/Smith style liberalism, so it's not really a case of someone self-criticizing a group they belong to.

I'm simply referring to him being on the left as opposed to being on the right.

he isn't on the left though. he seems to me like one of those radical centrists, at best

I mean he himself says he's on the left, I'd like to know why you think he isn't though.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Anteaterking posted...

You call it nitpicking, but it's more that there are people who are experts in the areas that Peterson isn't that say he's talking out of his ass on their area. But Peterson (or probably more accurately his followers) has made himself out to be coming from an academic viewpoint, and once you take the academic away from him, you're letting just...some guy tell you to stand up straight and clean your room. Still a smart guy, but still one who isn't talking from authority.

Like I absolutely would listen to things he has to say about e.g. alcoholism as he's had highly cited research in good journals on the topic.

I have yet to see anyone actually do that tho. I've seen people nitpick irrelevant details but never have I seen any of his actual points be refuted. I mean I just asked you exactly what he got wrong and you didn't answer me, which is pretty much par for the course. Can you go back and actually explain what he's saying that is inaccurate?
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Anteaterking posted...

Balrog0 posted...

the problem with him is that he doesn't make cogent arguments that are easily refutable, he makes scientific claims when it suits him and then slips into analogies that aren't meant to be taken literally in the same sentence

as @COVxy has pointed out, for instance, his idea that we can learn things about hierarchy and such from lobster physiology is basically not true in any scientific sense whatsoever, but he and his followers don't actually care about that from what I can tell. The overall message he is trying to present is more meaningful to he and they than the factual accuracy of his supporting statements. He uses particular pieces of scientific information, but he does not employ them in a scientific way. His thinking has more in common with Joseph Campbell style mysticism (which is systematic, like Peterson is, but not at all scientific) than with philosophy or science.

And I hate to always use this example, because it's something I'm only familiar with because it's under my discipline, but he repeatedly cites the most "mystical" of math theorems (e.g. Godel's incompleteness) in a completely incorrect way in an attempt to make his ontological arguments sound more robust. Combining this with the lobster thing just gives me the impression that he's wielding non-specific science in lieu of making a formal argument.

I don't get what you guys are saying he's getting wrong. I thought he brought up lobsters just to show how long social hierarchies have been around and how far back in our evolution we've been utilizing them. Is that not true?

And really if this is something that turns you off of his message it seems like you're nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking, seeing as how even if he was actually dead wrong about that it wouldn't affect his point at all.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Anteaterking posted...

nicklebro posted...

But for another liberal to point out the flaws and pitfalls of liberalism is eye opening and incredibly useful.

He describes himself as a "classical Liberal". Most historians consider modern liberalism to be disjoint from Locke/Smith style liberalism, so it's not really a case of someone self-criticizing a group they belong to.

I'm simply referring to him being on the left as opposed to being on the right.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Yes he's a good person!
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Romes187 posted...

I love the conversations that happen in JP topics

:)

Me too. When I see the absolute best arguments Peterson haters can muster are laughably pathetic it reaffirms my belief that he is an intellectual worth listening to that has a lot to offer the world. Plus, for so long the only people telling me what's wrong with liberals and the left have been conservatives, and they're obviously not a very reliable source since they usually say everything is wrong lol. But for another liberal to point out the flaws and pitfalls of liberalism is eye opening and incredibly useful.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

cjsdowg posted...

nicklebro posted...

Skipped two grades to graduate at 16, graduated summa cum laude from UCLA and cum laude from Harvard Law, was a prodigious concert violinist. And it's pretty clear just from listening to him speak that he's very intelligent, he's just also very ideological.

He knows how to debate; he is a master at it. However most of the time he is full shit and just presents his shit better then next guy. Like the time he went ranting about Oprah using the term personal truth. In place of attacking the real meaning the term he attacked the literally meaning of the term so he could something to bitch about.

I totally agree.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

-Gavirulax- posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Darmik posted...

Why do these conservative blow hards always challenge people to a debate.

Debate is a healthy part of a functioning society. I'd be more bothered if one group refused to ever engage in it, because you should be able to defend and justify your positions on issues if you actually believe they should be part of common law. They challenge people to debates because they believe they have the better case.

Leftists are historically resistant to having their ideas challenged.

Unfortunately, it's something this side are particularly known for lately.
We disagree, let's debate vs we disagree then you're a racist phobic toxic white supremacist who I must now ignore everything you've ever said due to one disagreement.

That being said I'm sure Peterson doesn't need to do much, some of (#notall) his fanboys are cult like anyway.

Peterson is a liberal btw.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Anteaterking posted...

nicklebro posted...

He is an intellectual. He's actually got an amazing mind and could have been anything in the world.

What is your basis for these claims?

Skipped two grades to graduate at 16, graduated summa cum laude from UCLA and cum laude from Harvard Law, was a prodigious concert violinist. And it's pretty clear just from listening to him speak that he's very intelligent, he's just also very ideological.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

No, that would just drive that kinda speech underground where it would fester and grow. We want it out on the open.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

The gays and abortions.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

The Admiral posted...

nicklebro posted...

The Admiral posted...

It completely misstated Ben's point in the title.

That's not true. Sure it lacked nuance and context, but it's still accurate. "Completely misstated" is definitely a complete misstatement.

The title says Ben is shitting on excited black people, when he does no such thing. So yes, it is completely misstated and is clickbait to lure gullible readers like the TC.

He complains about black people being excited for black panther. Lol you're desperately grasping at straws now man. You're turning this into a much bigger deal than it need to be. Don't let your ego turn this l into an L
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

The Admiral posted...

It completely misstated Ben's point in the title.

That's not true. Sure it lacked nuance and context, but it's still accurate. "Completely misstated" is definitely a complete misstatement.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

The Admiral posted...

Iodine posted...

Here is the actual video with those specific quotes:

So, I watched it.

- Ben is right that the media is exaggerating the importance of this movie. This is the NY Times article about the movie, hailing this a major milestone for black America:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/magazine/why-black-panther-is-a-defining-moment-for-black-america.html

- Ben admits at 1:17 that he's being snide and deliberately mocking the response, which is largely due to identity politics wave behind this. This is the biggest thing cjsdowg's shit source fails to take into account when quoting him, despite mention that he was being sarcastic. That was quite deliberate.

- His anecdote about his daughter and Judaism missed the mark and doesn't help his point.

So the worst part of TCs source is something they didn't say, that being ben admitting to being snide. Hmmm....
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

DifferentialEquation posted...

Suppose that the supply of AR-15s and other comparable firearms dried up and that was all that changed.

Do you think this would impact the frequency of school shootings?

Do you think that it would be feasible for someone to walk into a school and murder 10-20 kids (using a revolver or some other handgun) before being stopped by the police?

If yes to the last question, how do think you would react to this in terms of wanting more gun control?

IDK man you're asking me hypothetical questions I have no way of answering. But your baseless assumption that this would lead to gun bans is irrational, and your logic that this justifies your refusal to even debate the issue is doing more harm than good. Fact is that even if someone were to then argue for complete gun ban in your hypothetical situation, their argument would not receive the level of support that banning AR 15s are receiving right now.

And you're still only referring to the banning of guns and not other completely rational and common sense gun regulations, and you're assuming that these regulations would have 0 impact. Fact is that if we look at the rest of the world, none of what you're assuming seems to be the case.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Steve Nick posted...

You're throwing around some pretty bogus numbers.

There's currently being around 8k gun-related homicides per year. Obviously, if that number were to multiply itself 100x, then yes, it'd be a bigger issue.

Right now about half of those gun-related homicides are coming from gang activities, who are already obtaining and carrying guns illegally, and will continue to carry illegally even if laws are tightened up.

You'd decrease gun deaths by a lot more by breaking up gangs and increasing social welfare in desperate inner city zones than you would by trying to ban guns.

Obviously, that was the point.

And you can break up gangs and increase social welfare AND enact common Sense gun regulation at the same time. This false dichotomy is another NRA propaganda item.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

DifferentialEquation posted...

Yes, in otherwise identical scenarios, someone with an AR-15 would do more damage than with a revolver. What I am saying is that, in a school shooting scenario where it is unfortunately like shooting fish in barrel, someone can kill a lot of people with a revolver before the cops show up. I don't see any reason why someone murdering 10-20 children with a revolver wouldn't prompt the same sorts of "no civilian needs a weapon that can cause that much death" arguments.

The arguments for banning/restricting the guns themselves has almost always hinged on the death count. Someone killing 10-20 kids with a revolver is no less a tragedy.

Also, an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is one of the best choices for a home defense weapon which is one reason why I want it to to remain available to civilians.

Do you see the same push to ban revolvers as you do to ban AR 15s? Cuz I have no idea why anyone would ever think they would be the same. You've admitted that there's a massive difference between a revolver and an EAR 15, that difference is relevant in the conversation, so saying banning one would mean banning the other is ludicrous.

Lol and youre protecting your home with an AR 15? Jesus dude, you're gonna kill all your neighbors bro! No, the best choice for home protection is clearly a pistol, that should be common sense. Unless you're protecting your house from an army of charging mongols or something. I've got a .38 and a .22 for that reason, and a .45 for funsies.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

The Admiral posted...

Because TC deserves to be called out for posting stuff from a dumbshit site like that.

You libs would have a much different tone if someone posted an article from Breitbart, so stop being hypocrites and defending TC here just because it aligns with your political narrative.

Sure he does. But you didn't just call out his choice of website, you also called out the validity of his claims. See the difference is when you guys post something from Breitbart I delight in posting an actual valid source that disproves what was posted. Pointing out that Breitbart is a stupid place to get your news is cool, proving it is way better though. Same with this topic. I'm not defending TC, he's obviously in the wrong. But that doesn't make you right.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

The Admiral posted...

nicklebro posted...

The Admiral posted...

I'm sure TC's source is an accurate reflection of Ben's comments.

Why not look up his actual comments? Or did you already do that?

Because I have better things to do than hold TC's hand because he gets duped by dumbshit clickbait repeatedly.

If you or him want to post the video, I'll check it out. But his laziness doesn't create a homework assignment for me.

I don't see how doing that would be any different than the link you posted anyways... And you aren't going TCs homework for him, you're making a point by using actual facts. I mean it's pretty clear to me that if your aim is to prove TC wrong then going to the source and actually finding out if his posts are inaccurate would be the best way to do so. If you don't care enough to do that, then why post at all?
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.

Questionmarktarius posted...

nicklebro posted...

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

As-is, the background check system seems to to working pretty well, yes, for the original purchaser at least.
How would you suggest making it "better", though? All I can come with is some sort of "pre-approval" system, so someone wouldn't have to have another background check when buying a second gun.

All gun owners should be licensed to own guns and every gun should be registered. Just like with cars.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.