|
Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching
|
Re: Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching
I don't agree that the solution to gun violence is arming myself with a gun. I do not trust I would have what it takes to make the right decision when needed. And if I can't trust myself, I have an even harder time trusting other strangers.
He says that gun-free zones don't help because terrorists enter them knowing that since they're the only ones bearing guns, the victims won't be able to fight back. Fair enough, but then comes this question: is it allowed for normal individuals to legally purchase and carry firearms next to such gun-free zones? If so, why? |
Re: Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching
Quote:
it's highly probable that, if you are not used to concealed carry norms in your state, you are biased from the norms of where you live. I can honestly say that it's rare to not know someone who doesn't *at least* have a gun in their car when you go out somewhere. you can agree or disagree, but that won't mean you're not wrong. further, your evaluation of your own competence says nothing about the competence of others. yes it is allowed for people to have firearms near gun-free zones. why? because people opt-in to being "gun free." by default you don't have that restriction. |
Re: Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching
> first thirty seconds of the video telling us we are not safe from Muslims and ISIS
Muslims aren't the ones committing mass shootings in America, and Omar Mateen actively rejected his own Muslim heritage. Description of the Orlando shooter's volatile mental state I'm still watching the rest of the video, but fuck Milo. EDIT: He's at it again with the anti-Muslim speech. Look at the people committing mass shootings and tell me what most of them have in common: mental instability, troubled childhoods, hate speech, etc. Omar Mateen should not have legally been able to purchase a gun. Do I believe in concealed carry? Maybe, I'm not opposed on principle, but I haven't decided yet. But some people are able to obtain guns when they shouldn't be able to. EDIT EDIT: "Gays looking to the progressive left and saying, 'why did you give up on us?'" Is this guy for real?? I gave up on the video, he keeps pushing agendas and is unauthentic as fuck when dealing with the actual issue. I'm willing to accept that the point he's making is valid, but I'm not going to hear it from him |
Re: Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching
Quote:
the number of sources that convey his connection to both islam and islamic culture up to the day of the shooting are immense. I don't know where you're getting this from, but this is a hugely dishonest thing to say, especially given what is already known about british muslims and homophobia and the beliefs mateen's father imparted on him, including mateen's comments post-shooting your link does absolutely nothing to substantiate this, WaPo calling him "volatile" is a no-shit thing, obviously a shooter motivated by religious ideology is going to be volatile and unstable and whatever other pop psych middle class terms you want to use. what, you expected them to be singing a fucking lullaby the whole time? > EDIT: He's at it again with the anti-Muslim speech. given that the clear source of this issue is homophobia, this is hardly blameworthy. > Do I believe in concealed carry? it wouldn't matter if you "believed" in it Quote:
"mental instability" is way too vague, and is the kind of lets-get-along middle class pop psych bullshit people come up with when that's about the extent they're going to think on the issue. I guarantee you will not be able to come up with a coherent set of criteria for mental instability. "troubled childhoods" is neo-freudian nonsense. the people committing suicide bombings in third world countries do not universally have troubled childhoods. they have normal childhoods, which is maybe 'troubled' by the standards of some middle class twit in America, so then with labels that broad you're reduced to saying people do this because they are not the assimilated American middle class -- well no shit. don't even get me started on 'hate speech'. holy shit lmfao. this isn't a consistently defined category anywhere on the planet. the people who can come up with a coherent criteria for mental instability on this website (e.g. reach, who has studied psychometrics at the grad level) would readily admit to the influence of religious doctrine, and sam harris, with a phd in neuroscience (who also has had to learn at some point criteria for mental instability) attributes this to religious doctrine as well you are trying to sweep under the rug the intensity of homophobia by adherents as if nominal entry into the category "homophobia" is sufficient to make religions equally culpable. this is horseshit and you know it. the mere presence of homophobia in a religion does not need to be stated, I live in the fucking south and have been consciously bisexual since I was 15, of course I am aware. the intensity of homophobia however is so radically different from religion to religion and this cannot be ignored if you want to have an honest evaluation of all causal factors. note that my fiancee's mom, who is black and jehovah's witness, does not approve of homosexuality. this is typical of jehovah's witnesses and was typical of the black community up to a certain point. however she wouldn't be caught dead -- nor would any of her black relatives -- saying homosexuality should be illegal. ~50% of british muslims do think homosexuality should be illegal. this is a stark difference that you'd have noted if you made sure you had a grip on what you were addressing before you made the mistake of choosing to reply with insufficient information. Quote:
the equivalent to Pulse, in San Antonio, is HEAT nightclub (ok fine or Bonham, but let's go with HEAT). it's structurally similar to Pulse. I've been there more times than I can remember. it's one of my favorite places in the city, and most attendees are bisexual rather than outright gay. it's the only time I've made out with four people at the same time on a dancefloor. had Omar picked a different city, I could have been a casualty of that shooting. easily. now I should mention that had he tried this at Cowboys Dancehall, another club in San Antonio, it would look more like the opening scene of Aladdin: but LGBT, until, really, now, have not armed themselves in a similar way to most Texas clubgoers. nightclubs like this, until this moment, were effectively sanctuaries. no one thought a homophobe would enter one, because they'd just be too disgusted to stay. for people like me, this changed how we thought about safety of LGBT friends in a major way. when the response to this event is not chastising the homophobia present in religious doctrine but ensuring that america will not be islamophobic, or whatever, it was like a punch to the gut by Mike Tyson saying "we only value you as a political tool." instead of "fuck milo", fuck you for acting like it is not a thing unique to religious doctrine that I could be put to death in 10 or so countries which all happen to be heavily influenced by islamic doctrine if it were the other way around, i.e. islam was just as stigmatizing to homosexuality as christianity, there would be a set of islamic countries where homosexuality were widely tolerated, such as in britain or the US, given that there are majority-christian countries where homosexuality is widely tolerated. this is not the case. given that the US has been previously hostile to muslims, the muslims in the US will be the most favorable of virtually any muslim demographic on the planet. nonetheless, 50% of british muslims think homosexuality should be illegal and ~1/3 of american muslims find homosexuality immoral. note this does not identify the intensity to which they think it is immoral, since ~15% of jehovah's witnesses find homosexuality immoral yet overwhelmingly do not hold a desire similar to british muslims to see it punished by law. and, for the record, I am an atheist. if anything, I've been screwed by Team Jesus more times in my life than I can count. yet, if I'm picking a country to live or visit, I'm picking countries on Team Jesus almost every time because I don't have to worry that maybe I'll get thrown off a building that day.  orange: imprisonment red: up to life in prison dark red: dead yes there are african countries where dogmatic christians take an EAT DA POO POO mentality toward homosexuality but trying to tie this to some kind of african tendency is just an obvious rationalization; the profound majority of this intense stigma comes from affirmation of religious doctrine in some way or another which can be seen by the way these laws come to fruition, especially when the sentencing for zina is standard or semistandard across religious practice.  this is the correct response think long and hard about whether you're going to reply again after admitting you haven't even watched the whole fucking thing, given that the latter half of the video gives pertinent statistical information the likelihood of you saying anything valuable after this without even knowing the subject matter you're addressing is nonexistent if you aren't even going to use baseline levels of competence to make a reply, just don't. no one needs to hear what you have to say. they're probably even better off for not hearing it. |
Re: Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching
damn arch get em
|
Re: Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching
milo is super sick, been listening to his show for a couple months now
|
Re: Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching
The statement of "most people committing suicide bombings in third world countries have normal childhoods" is probably not all that accurate, Arch.
Some, though certainly a minority, are trained from childhood and some perform the bombings at a very young age. Not really normal though certainly outlying cases. There's certainly some aspects of these people that appear to be universal, almost all of them are below age 30, and most are unmarried, but they generally come from diverse backgrounds. The idea that most of them were raised in poverty isn't accurate, but to say that most of them have ordinary or normal childhoods isn't really able to be substantiated, or perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying (tends to happen with me). |
Re: Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching
A couple things.
First of all, cultural bias is most certainly bias, I'll give you that. But bias is a two-way street. The culture shock someone from New York would get from going to San Antonio is exactly the same vice versa. I certainly am not prepared to walk around a community where everyone is armed to teeth, and you I would imagine would be at least a little surprised to see how few people carry (legally, at least) say, on Long Island. The part of the video you had us start at mentions how a bunch of twitter posts or whatever preaching love and peace will do nothing, and will certainly do nothing to change the way of thinking in Mosques in "your" city. The argument of "words will do nothing" applies so much less to us, and so much more to the garbage politicians sitting in Congress who needed to be filibustered for 15 Hours before they even considered voting on gun control as opposed to the usual "Our thoughts and prayers are with you."  The people placed in the position to make change go out of their way to avoid change because of how laughably bought out they are by the NRA. Should we just out-bid the NRA on our law-makers since the money is what our politicians care about? Not the whole, you know, appropriately handling problems in America thing? He's also making the assumption that every Mosque in the fucking world is preaching "death to gays and America and everything that isn't us" when it has been made so abundantly clear that those views are not synonymous with anything other than ISIS, which leads me to believe he himself has never attempted to visit a mosque to see how they practice their beliefs. Do you believe that his "ties" to ISIS led him to do this act? Do you really believe that ISIS, on the other side of the world, influenced this kid at a young enough age to set his moral compass on the murder of scores of homosexuals, and that it wasn't America itself? Do you believe that with 3 or 4 more people with guns in the club would have actually changed the situation at all? The only thing that would have happened is panicked gunfire, missed and potentially misplaced shots. Maybe the killer would not have had all 49 or 50 people to his name, but now there's the chance of someone else potentially missing and being the one bear that weight. They were in a club with flashing lights, full of people. Do you believe that the 3 or 4 people who potentially could have had a gun would have, in the little time that they had, the mental fortitude to shoot the attacker, and only the attacker? Not to mention the chance that the attacker may have gotten lucky and shot one of them first? I don't disagree that we can't rely on strict pacifism to deal with this threat. But that said, leave the aggression to those who are *properly* trained for it, not some gun-toting idiot who thinks the government is some tyrannical force that they can topple with their cute AR-15. I believe that people who have shown, or can show that they are physically and mentally capable of protecting themselves and others with guns should have them. But don't act like it isn't hilariously easy for anyone to get a gun. It hasn't been brought up yet I think but I'd prefer to dispell the argument before it does: "Guns don't kill people, People kill people, and they'll get guns no matter what laws you put in place!" Sure, let's legalize heroin and crack/cocaine while we're at it seeing as they'll just get it anyway. Putting laws in place that make it more difficult for someone to legally acquire a gun inherently makes it more difficult for someone to acquire it illegally, because now black market weapons will be more scarce, and prices will skyrocket. I don't like guns, I don't. But I know people value them too much for some reason, and I'll accept that and I certainly don't want to take them away, because if we put stricter gun control in place, they should have nothing to worry about unless you yourself have something to hide. |
Re: Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching
I don't believe that the solution to guns is more guns. The solution should be preventing the person who shouldn't have a gun from getting it to begin with. You don't throw fire at more fire expecting it to be put out, because in the end, there's still fire. You douse the fire entirely and reduce the threat to as close to zero as possible.
|
Re: Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching
Quote:
|
Re: Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching
so where did you get the impression this was ever about "mass shooters" as a category, because
"There's certainly some aspects of these people that appear to be universal" -- not talking about mass shooters. mass shooters in the United States, absent religious motive, are their own category of personality. this has a lot more in common with acts of religious terrorism than it does with sandy hook or anything else. Quote:
I said that they do not have "troubled childhoods" and have probably normal childhoods relative to the standards of their country because the concept of "troubled childhood" from someone in the american middle class trying to get at causality re: religious doctrine is hilariously out of touch what is "normal" is effectively up to whatever the fuck goes down in their country, so, e.g.: Quote:
do you know what normal means? psychological disorders -- behavioral ones anyway -- exist entirely as cultural constructs relative to whatever is normal for a given culture, e.g. personality disorders that exist in the US might not exist in China and vice versa the idea of a "normal childhood", coming from someone in the first world, is laughable to even imagine in the context of, say, Syria talking about childhoods reeks of people who have never actually studied the causal factors of behavior spoiler alert, it is: 1. genetics 2. peer group 3. everything else and religious doctrine is a really really influential peer group seriously it's not just an uphill battle trying to explain the influence of islamic religious doctrine, it's an uphill battle on mt. Kilimanjaro, and the only reason I didn't use Everest as an analogy are because there are indeed worse stances you could have picked (such as denying that post-WWI German political ideology didn't have influence on antisemitism), though that's the most concession I can give right now |
Re: Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching
Quote:
And while yes it is still concealed carry, the knowledge that (apparently) the majority of people around me are weaponized is a little harrowing to say the least. Not because I now suddenly feel the urge to have a gun myself, but because I wonder and worry why all these people felt so unsafe in this area that they needed one for themselves. |
Re: Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching
Quote:
|
Re: Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching
Quote:
|
Re: Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching
That you are needlessly paranoid based on statistics and made a terrible analogy about culture shock
|
Re: Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching
Quote:
2. """should be""". but any time you try to ban purchase of something you deal with a lot of legal mechanisms that have side effects you didn't intend a ban is not merely a ban, it is a behavioral claim that it will have the psychological effect you say it will have the first assault weapons ban, for example, was an utter failure. it had zero predictive power for what it said it was going to do a lot, if not nearly all, of the people who advocate background checks have not actually thought about what things are going to be checked in the background check. okay, so you're checking for convicted felonies. what about people who have nonviolent felonies, e.g. people who sold LSD once? then they're prime target for robberies since other dealers know they cannot buy a gun. what about people who have killed in self-defense? and so on. it's not nearly as simple as you say it is. this is doubly true considering lots of legal gun owners just occasionally do stupid shit, but nothing nearly as stupid as a mass shooting. then there's the issue that buying a gun illegally is really fucking easy. if I wanted one I could get one tomorrow. seriously, go on the darknet. talk to your dealer. whatever. I would have a harder time finding 3-fluoroamphetamine than I do an illegal handgun. I could search for days and not find 3-FA. I could make a few phonecalls and get an illegal gun. I'm not going to get either of those things, but it's the principle. on the spectrum of illegal guns, the serious shit is like, a M16 fully automatic or something. buying a handgun or whatever illegally is lol-tier and you can get them from people who don't even specialize in illegal guns, because people in desperate situations will sell you all kinds of shit if they really need the money. the only reason it's not more common is because criminals/terrorists/whatever often don't need to, but you're delusional if you think there'd be some huge stoppage if we just barred them. the boston marathon bombers didn't use guns, as is obvious by the title "bomber", they used pressure cooker bombs. when your goal is to kill a shitload of people and die you will find a lot of creative solutions. this killer just happened to find rifles a comfortable method. what would have actually made a difference is giving the FBI discretion to intervene given a set of criteria (e.g. on watch list, meet some kind of "likely shooter" criteria) but this is only a subset of policies and will not actually fix the scenarios where a shooter manages to go under the radar and still holds homophobic tendencies due to religion. had there been three or four concealed carriers like there often is at cowboy's dancehall here, this wouldn't have happened. you can fight off one other shooter with a gun, but fighting off three isn't happening. > "Do you really believe that ISIS, on the other side of the world, influenced this kid at a young enough age to set his moral compass on the murder of scores of homosexuals, and that it wasn't America itself?" do you really believe this rhetorical device isn't completely fucking retarded ISIS is trivial, nor did I even mention them did you read any of the statistics mentioned here at all because I'm going to say no, you didn't. don't reply again if you haven't referenced them. "I don't disagree that we can't rely on strict pacifism to deal with this threat" yeah this is not a concession at all. this concession is taking you from "human vegetable-tier intelligence" to "capable of reading words on a screen." Quote:
you claim to have enough knowledge about guns to make this prediction, and yet 1. you said "I don't like guns" 2. you admitted that going to a place with concealed carry would be a "culture shock" yet you claim to have the firearms competence to successfully predict the outcome of a firefight get the fuck out. you are completely and utterly full of shit. |
Re: Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching
Quote:
|
Re: Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching
"if you aren't even going to use baseline levels of competence to make a reply, just don't. no one needs to hear what you have to say. they're probably even better off for not hearing it."
I would suggest submitting this type of thread into the "critical thinking" category if this is something you did not want. Your Original Post doesn't really adhere to your desired level of competence either. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution