It's quite relevant because it's a choice. You are choosing to own a gun, just like you're choosing to be a bigoted racist prick.
No one is free from the consequences of their choices, even if those consequences make you "feel bad".
Right Wing Repugnants Once Argued Moral Grounds For Impeachment
- Thread starter Old Trapper
- Start date
It's quite relevant because it's a choice. You are choosing to own a gun, just like you're choosing to be a bigoted racist prick.
No one is free from the consequences of their choices, even if those consequences make you "feel bad".
The gun owner chose to be a gun owner.
You seem to be arguing that no one should face social consequences for their choices.
That's a bitch move, by the way.
You just said liberals are intolerant of gun owners. So to be a gun owner, you have to choose to own a gun. So again, the liberals are reacting to a choice that is being made. So once again, if the choice wasn't made, then the liberals wouldn't react to it. So all you're doing is defending provocation, but refusing to accept the social consequences of provoking responses.
No one is born a gun owner; it's a choice you make. And if you're making that choice, you have to be prepared to face the consequences for doing so. Conservatives absolutely hate accountability and responsibility, and that's because they were poorly raised.
Bullshit.
You've been defending bigotry and intolerance this whole time by trying to whatabout to liberals, and you can't even do that effectively.
Poor work ethic + unearned entitlement = you
You obviously cannot read. I did not say anyone was "calling for communism" or anything even close. I asked if you believe a country can be communist without a socialist economic system.
I guess your deflection from the real issue is because you cannot answer the question and think insults replace facts.
Said from a place of privilege and comfort. See, someone like you can say something like this because you don't actually face any oppression, bigotry, or intolerance in society because of your social position. So you can pretend to be above the fray simply because you have the privilege to withdraw yourself from any situation that might result in bigotry against someone else. It's the ultimate in apathetic ambivalence. Well, someone can't change their skin color, or their sexual preference; they can't simply take off the red hat and disappear into society to avoid social consequences. So this position of yours is quite lazy and privileged, not to mention incredibly cowardly.
No, it hasn't, actually. That's why you can't come up with any specifics. That's why you use improper nouns. Because you can't cite any specific case, but you feel it to be true because your argument is a conclusion in search of a process.
Again, your reading comprehension is poor. There were no details. There was no mystery man. It was a generic speaker making a speech opposing affirmative action. Can you not grasp that simple idea. If you have to have specifics, it was Ward Connerly (but could be anybody).
I guess you are deflecting from the real discussion because you know the answer refutes your claim that all liberal hate and intolerance is a reaction against conservative intolerance. In this case a person is making a speech and liberal protestors are blocking the speech. That is liberal intolerance against an idea they don't like and is not the result of conservative intolerance.
But it is not relevant to the point under discussion. Just because a person chooses to own a gun does not mean a liberal is not initiating hate and intolerance toward that person's choice. Again, proving both liberals and conservatives can initiate hate and liberal intolerance is not always a reaction against conservative intolerance. There was no conservative intolerance when that person bought a gun (and might be a liberal gun owner) but the liberal chose intolerance and hate because of his choice.
I don't even care.
By even invoking "communism" you are deliberately attempting to spike the debate. The only one talking about Communism is you. Are you sure you're not a Communist? You sure seem to talk about it an awful lot.
Your shit-ass question has nothing to do with the intolerance and hate that Conservatives have that is inherent. It's you attempting to try to find some kind of equivalent so you don't have to admit that one side of the debate is completely fucking wrong because they're bigots.
Right, just like I said...you made this shit up.
So for someone who screeched like a barnyard animal about "accepting truths", you sure do a lot of generalized, ambivalent, ambiguous make-believe, don't you?
You literally had to invent a scenario in order to maintain a moral relativism argument.
Bitch move.
And why should he invoke hate and intolerance because he chose to own a gun?
Why should he face negative social consequences for his choice? It is only because of liberal intolerance against him.
What social consequences should you face because of your choice of a vehicle? I know union guys that would vandalize it if it is not an American made vehicle.
BUT CONNERLY WASN'T EXCLUDED OR PREVENTED FROM SPEAKING.
IN fact, he has spoken at tons of universities, including an HBCU.
So you make shit up, then you redefine the parameters later on.
That's your post-hoc style. And it's total weak sauce.
1. So you maintained that Conservative speakers are being shut out on college campuses
2. You couldn't actually come up with a real case without also having to admit to exculpatory evidence about the speakers (Milo is a good example of this)
3. You decided to use the tactic of literally inventing a scenario -a straw-man- to argue as your main point.
None of this proves liberal intolerance isn't a reaction to Conservative intolerance, by the way. Even in the example you gave -Connerly- he wasn't shut out anywhere and actually even spoke at an HBCU. You chose to hold that information out, didn't you?
You're the one who brought it up! So it's entirely relevant.
You're arguing that people shouldn't face social consequences for their choices.
So you don't believe in accountability or responsibility.
You're just a fraud.
You are truly dense. I was not referring to any specific case. However, if you don't think speakers have been blocked on college campuses for opposing affirmative action you are not very well informed.
Here are a few links so you can catch up on your lack of reading for the last 30-40 years:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ers-free-speech-editorials-debates/100885962/
https://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Connerly-retiring-as-UC-regent-leaves-2704643.php
Because guns kill people.
Why? Because he's choosing to put others in danger to satisfy his own selfish need for security.
No one buys a car to kill people.
cawacko
Well-known member
Actually to your number 2, broken down by race, blacks by far voted the most for Prop 8 at 70%. Now overall they are a much smaller total of the state population wise but they live in the Bay Area, LA and SD. Coastal areas. So unless you want to tell me most blacks in California are Republican once again you are wrong and don't understand my state. You know who the second largest group to support Prop 8 was? Hispanics. I'll let you in on a secret. Very few Hispanics in California vote Republican. (see Prop 187).
So you can cuss and name call all you want but it doesn't change those facts.