i hope claeyt is ok

[Claeyt]

I am triggered by your misuse of the word "triggered"
Stop this

Why could you possibly think this is a misuse of 'Triggered'. I think Darwoth's response to this old injury to his puny raisin-esque manhood where he got called out and failed IS triggering his rage now. He's basically acting out the definition of being irrationally triggered emotionally by some old nonsense of his own making.

Maybe you need to look up what triggered actually means. It doesn't just have to be a liberal who's triggered by anti-PC talk or someone who's dealing with PTSD. This isn't some nonsense Trumpian conservative safe space that you guys are used to being coddled in. Welcome to the real world. Learn your memes.

https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/c ... ered_mean/

[Inotdead]

Ah Claeyt.
You are like a special seasoning to these forums.

[Claeyt]

Ah Claeyt.
You are like a special seasoning to these forums.

[TotalyMeow]

Currently America is the only modern industrial country that allows gay people to be fired from their job just for being gay.

Aren't there a couple modern industrial countries that allow gay people to be executed? I think the US is actually coming along pretty well when it comes to treating people fairly.

Are you talking about gay people being executed for being gay? Why are you talking about killing gay people. There is no modern industrial democracy in Europe, any of the America's or anywhere besides some backwards Islamic theocracies that have anything like that.

Yes, I am talking about that. Mind you, I'm not condoning it like you are trying to imply. You do love to try to vilify people, don't you? And I like how you slipped 'democracy' and 'Europe' in there. Several countries in the Middle East and other parts of the world are quite modern and industrialized and also execute people for being gay. Others 'just' make it illegal. I'm saying that one or two people getting fired and then claiming it was because they are gay is unfair if it happens, but you can't go around saying America is a horrible place for gays and we treat them worse than any other industrialized nation when we've come such a long way and have never been as bad as some places STILL are.

Being gay is whatever the person wants it to be. Why should they hide or feel ashamed for who they are?

I never said they should be ashamed or hide it. I don't appreciate this straw man argument. Stop it.

Being gay is not a sexual fetish and IS genetic and comparing it to sexual fetish is just about the worst thing I've ever heard you say Tmeow.

I was comparing one kind of sex to another. You're acting like fetishes are a bad thing. Shame on you. But okay, let's compare one type of genes to another instead. Probably more apt anyway. What if you have red hair? It's silly to be proud of your red hair as if it's an accomplishment and to go around announcing to the people you meet that you have red hair or that you are friends with a bunch of red haired people. Yes, we can all see the red hair, it doesn't need to be pointed out. It's weird that you feel the need to do so. Do you understand? I don't care if someone is gay any more than I care if they have red hair.

Should gay people not hold hands or kiss in public because you have a problem with it?

Here's another thing I never said. I have no problem with any couple of any genders, races, religious affiliations, whatever, being reasonably affectionate in public.

[stuff about Trump]

To the Trump thread, please. I'd be happy to talk about him there.

They could be, yet they've been blocked over and over by your Republican party.

I'm not Republican, actually, and I disagree with many things that both the Republicans and the Democrats have done.

Australia allows all of these but you must register and store your guns with the police and they had forced buy backs. It took them 20 years but it's harder to get a gun there than almost anywhere in the world. Some sitting Republican congressmen not only don't support anything like this but have called for an armed revolution if the government implements laws such like these.

As well they should. Australians may be okay with this, I don't know, but here the second amendment definitely says we have a right to own guns privately and keep them to hand in order to form a militia or cede from the union at the very most literal and restrictive interpretation. In fact, considering the intent of the second amendment, military grade weaponry should be a protected right. Military grade, Claeyt. Not pop guns and hunting rifles. I'm not saying that's what I want, I'm saying that's what the constitution actually tells us we should be guaranteed.

No, that's not what happened.

It kinda is. I remember that thread reasonably well.

[bunch of nonsense about crime rates and gun crime rates]

But all of that has already been proven to be comparing apples to oranges.

There's a big difference between owning something because you're told you can't and facing real punishment for owning, making or selling something. When you know that illegal means years in prison and thousands in fines you are much less likely to do it.

It will make law-abiding citizens less likely to own an illegal, yes. But people who already plan to commit murder or go on a shooting spree aren't going to be so worried about 5 years and a fine.

What are we gonna do, make the punishments steeper? We did that with drug crime here, all it did was put relatively minor offenders in prison for draconian sentences and barely made a dent in drug crime.

Now that is something that needs to be fixed. People have been given ridiculous sentences for having something as small as a joint of marijuana or other small amount of drugs. Marijuana is even legal in quite a few states now, but I haven't heard of any commuted sentences. Judges aren't even allowed to use their judgement when sentencing, which is supposed to be their main job. Instead, a bunch of congressmen decided that you go to jail pretty much for life for minor minor drug offenses. It's horrible.

[saltmummy]

Yeah, the mandatory minimums are god awful.

Less gun deaths, more poisoning, stabbing, clubbing, strangling, convenient "accidents," etc. etc. etc.
If it's death you want to argue, then the old saying "Guns don't kill people, people do" applies here. Human beings are better at killing than anything else they do. We find some incredibly creative ways to do it too, and we don't need guns to do it.

Plus, a blade is so much more personal than a bullet anyway. Much quieter too. Hypothetically, one could hide in an alleyway or some other dark quiet place and pick off people silently as they came into it and then move on when it gets more difficult to hide the bodies or disguise them as congregating homeless people. With that kind of tactic, a serial killer could probably rack up a larger kill count than a mass shooter as long as he doesn't slip up and get caught. I can imagine most of the "shoot up the place" types don't have the kind of patience that would take though. What's more terrifying? Some guy with a gun that will most likely kill himself or get killed in a police shootout? Or someone who quietly picks off a few people and then moves on to do it again another night? I guess the gun is louder and makes people frightened of being in crowded public places, but frankly the headline "stabber still on the loose in your neighborhood!" is a bit scarier to me.

[Kandarim]

it's kinda cute how you still think claeyt can be won over by logical arguments.

[saltmummy]

it's kinda cute how you still think claeyt can be won over by logical arguments.

No, I know he can't. Why am I still trying though?

[Inotdead]

it's kinda cute how you still think claeyt can be won over by logical arguments.

It's all about the journey, not the destination

[Claeyt]

Are you talking about gay people being executed for being gay? Why are you talking about killing gay people. There is no modern industrial democracy in Europe, any of the America's or anywhere besides some backwards Islamic theocracies that have anything like that.

Yes, I am talking about that. Mind you, I'm not condoning it like you are trying to imply. You do love to try to vilify people, don't you? And I like how you slipped 'democracy' and 'Europe' in there. Several countries in the Middle East and other parts of the world are quite modern and industrialized and also execute people for being gay. Others 'just' make it illegal. I'm saying that one or two people getting fired and then claiming it was because they are gay is unfair if it happens, but you can't go around saying America is a horrible place for gays and we treat them worse than any other industrialized nation when we've come such a long way and have never been as bad as some places STILL are.

Yet Republicans still want to check your birth certificate before you can go to the bathroom where you feel comfortable. As for workplace rules there is no national protections for workplace firings for sexual orientation... period. You can flat out be fired by your company if they find out you're gay, no questions asked in most states and none by the federal government. The Republicans have blocked this over and over.

As for middle eastern theocracies being 'industrial based economies' that's a debate for another day but right now the only places I know of where you can be executed for being gay are theocracies and dictatorships.

Being gay is whatever the person wants it to be. Why should they hide or feel ashamed for who they are?

I never said they should be ashamed or hide it. I don't appreciate this straw man argument. Stop it.

You absolutely said that they shouldn't be proud of it or make it public. The opposite of not being proud is to be ashamed.

Your quote:

What annoys me a bit is the insistence that being gay is something that needs to be publicized and paraded about and be PROUD OF. It's just a personality trait and it's kinda a private one.

Why should they have to be 'NOT' proud of it or make it private if they don't want to?

Being gay is not a sexual fetish and IS genetic and comparing it to sexual fetish is just about the worst thing I've ever heard you say Tmeow.

I was comparing one kind of sex to another. You're acting like fetishes are a bad thing. Shame on you. But okay, let's compare one type of genes to another instead. Probably more apt anyway. What if you have red hair? It's silly to be proud of your red hair as if it's an accomplishment and to go around announcing to the people you meet that you have red hair or that you are friends with a bunch of red haired people. Yes, we can all see the red hair, it doesn't need to be pointed out. It's weird that you feel the need to do so. Do you understand? I don't care if someone is gay any more than I care if they have red hair.

No, you are wrong. Being gay is not like having red hair. Being gay is also a community. Being gay is more like being 'Irish'. Yes, you may have red hair but you also have 'Irish Bars' and 'St. Patty's Day Parades' and a special flag and other stuff that important to your community and when some religious nut job guns down a bar full of 'Irish People' and hunted the survivors because they're 'Irish' you feel it deep down and personally. And when you're friends with some 'Irish' people and have had some drinks and laughs with them in 'Irish Bars' on occasion you tell people that you sympathize with them and all 'Irish' people right now and think about your 'Irish' friends and how they feel.

And when some jackass says that your 'Irish' friends shouldn't be proud of being 'Irish' or says that they should keep their being 'Irish' private then you call them out for being anti-'Irish' in this especially bad time for the 'Irish'.

Should gay people not hold hands or kiss in public because you have a problem with it?

Here's another thing I never said. I have no problem with any couple of any genders, races, religious affiliations, whatever, being reasonably affectionate in public.

K, then you're NOW okay with gay people publicizing, parading and NOT keeping it private, because just 2 pages ago you said the opposite.

[stuff about Trump]

To the Trump thread, please. I'd be happy to talk about him there.

Darwoth brought up the Mega-Oompa Loompa not me. Warn him.

They could be, yet they've been blocked over and over by your Republican party.

I'm not Republican, actually, and I disagree with many things that both the Republicans and the Democrats have done.

Yet you're defending their gun law policy.

Australia allows all of these but you must register and store your guns with the police and they had forced buy backs. It took them 20 years but it's harder to get a gun there than almost anywhere in the world. Some sitting Republican congressmen not only don't support anything like this but have called for an armed revolution if the government implements laws such like these.

As well they should. Australians may be okay with this, I don't know, but here the second amendment definitely says we have a right to own guns privately and keep them to hand in order to form a militia or cede from the union at the very most literal and restrictive interpretation. In fact, considering the intent of the second amendment, military grade weaponry should be a protected right. Military grade, Claeyt. Not pop guns and hunting rifles. I'm not saying that's what I want, I'm saying that's what the constitution actually tells us we should be guaranteed.

It does not say that at all. Only in the most loosely interpreted Republican wet dreams does this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

mean unregulated unlicensed unchecked gun sales, and ownership of modern weaponry and firepower undreamed of by the founding fathers.

The constitution does NOT tell us that completely unregulated gun ownership is a guaranteed right and it's the great failing of the Supreme court that this misinterpretation of this amendment has been allowed to stand since before multi-round clips and gas powered shell expulsion were even invented. The NRA is no longer able to lie to us anymore and furthermore the rights of this amendment do not supersede the rights of the other citizens held within the other amendments.

No, that's not what happened.

It kinda is. I remember that thread reasonably well.

It happened like I explained but I guess someone's going to have to go dig it up. I'll leave that to you.

[bunch of nonsense about crime rates and gun crime rates]

But all of that has already been proven to be comparing apples to oranges.

Gun crime rates are gun crime rates. Crime rates include gun crime rates. What are you arguing against?

There's a big difference between owning something because you're told you can't and facing real punishment for owning, making or selling something. When you know that illegal means years in prison and thousands in fines you are much less likely to do it.

It will make law-abiding citizens less likely to own an illegal, yes. But people who already plan to commit murder or go on a shooting spree aren't going to be so worried about 5 years and a fine.

No, as I've said in this thread many, many times now people who are going to commit a crime are going to find a way. Let's make it as hard for them to do that as possible by making it as hard as possible for them to get a gun. Fortunately that also means that it'll be harder for all of us to get a gun including all those abusive husbands who shoot their wives and kids, or those right wing nut jobs who want to take over nature centers.

[Claeyt]

it's kinda cute how you still think claeyt can be won over by logical arguments.

I'm the one using logic here. Do you really think American gun laws are right or logical?