Another gun thread

[CatHedral]

he won't...trolls are either political operatives, or they're attention starved assholes...i don't think this guy is a political operative...

A political inoperative.

 

[CatHedral]

Honest question, why not hit up a forum where your politics are more appreciated if you would like to talk about them? They exist, I came here from one. Got crabbed at by mods for being mean to Trump people, shoe was on the other foot there, so I left.

Take the high road guy and leave.

We’re all about the high road on this forum.

 

[captainmorgan]

Mental midget max feels picked on, snowflake.

 

[Fogdog]

Really then why did I get put in time out? cussing then for threaten or some other s*** while the same people were doing it more then I?

I did cuss but I didn't threaten anyone, you said stop I stopped while all the others did not.
Then I asked to be allowed to Ignore i was able to ignore some people but not all so yeah I started reporting. Guess its the friends list cool but don't expect me to lay there and get walked on.
Go check the email I sent that asked to let me be able to ignore. Y'all don't want to answer emails this is what I had to do.

HGCC makes a good point. You don't really talk about politics here. You just carp at us for not being you. You've said you aren't right or left. You say you don't support Biden or Trump. You say you are neither Republican or Democrat. So I have another question you won't answer. Do you go to right wing politics forums and carp at them like you do us? You know, because you say are so centrist. Do you give equal time carping at the group of people who support Trump? I bet you don't. I'd also bet that you'd be banned the second you pressed send. Because authoritarians are not nearly as tolerant as liberals are about what people say.

 

[CatHedral]

HGCC makes a good point. You don't really talk about politics here. You just carp at us for not being you. You've said you aren't right or left. You say you don't support Biden or Trump. You say you are neither Republican or Democrat. So I have another question you won't answer. Do you go to right wing politics forums and carp at them like you do us? You know, because you say are so centrist. Do you give equal time carping at the group of people who support Trump? I bet you don't. I'd also bet that you'd be banned the second you pressed send. Because authoritarians are not nearly as tolerant as liberals are about what people say.

I am an actual centrist.

 

[Herb & Suds]

I am an actual centrist.
View attachment 5057014

My tRUMPian side wants to say if we just stopped testing ....

 

[CatHedral]

My tRUMPian side wants to say if we just stopped testing ....

Repugs generally lose their heads when pregnancy is involved.

 

[Herb & Suds]

Repugs generally lose their heads when pregnancy is involved.

They have a strange way of migrating to issues of the crotch area

 

[Wattzzup]

He’s clocked out again I see. Didn’t even make an 8 hour shift today.

 

[Fogdog]

He’s clocked out again I see. Didn’t even make an 8 hour shift today.

Maybe he's getting "unfairly" punished. Again

 

[CatHedral]

He’s clocked out again I see. Didn’t even make an 8 hour shift today.

It’s an account limitation

 

[rkymtnman]

He’s clocked out again I see. Didn’t even make an 8 hour shift today.

maybe putin is running another test??

Russia ‘Successfully Disconnected’ From World Wide Web in Tests – RBC - The Moscow Times

Russia has “successfully disconnected” from the world wide web during tests of its “sovereign internet” technology, the RBC news website reported Wednesday.

www.themoscowtimes.com

 

[Budley Doright]

Well now we know he’s just a whiney little bitch boy........ hmmm reminds me of someone.

 

[canndo]

im done talking to you...your whole dialogue is to make yourself feel better about your own choices, and to make others feel inferior because they don't agree with you. you're full of shit, you're never going to convince anyone that opiates and methamphetamine are good for you, because they aren't. if you can take them without crashing and burning, good for you, but bad for a lot of other people...but fuck them, because it's ok for you...as long as you get what you want, a large segment of our society can become addicted and probably never recover, and cause misery for an even larger segment of society as they self immolate. but those drugs that do that to those predisposed to addiction...they're the same as weed, morally...
fuck that, that's a load of horseshit.

And you can't get it, from the beginning you claimed that the majority of overdoses were caused by people having just gotten out of prison. I showed you how that most certainly must be false but you continued to presume that in one way or another, these substances must be indicative of the users failures and moral deficiencies.

From there you maintained that opiate users were not responsible for their abject positions in society while still claiming that they were as a whole, members of an inferior social class.

I posted evidence that the tiny minority of all opiate users came to degradation and societal failure but you cling to some obscure "one in five" citation, all the while casting moral decree upon all users even while you eventually weighed YOUR drug if choice as utterly benign.

I never cast judgement upon your drug use, but you managed to do that upon others. My ONLY argument was that such condescension was reasonable.

I never claimed that the use of this or that drug was benign, you managed to do that. There must certainly be a character flaw in the user's of SOME drugs but not the drug YOU use regularly.

And you hang on to that judgement of the drug, and by way of that drug, the user.



And you managed to lump some 4million people into a morally depraved category.


I have not.

 

[Rob Roy]

You've never answered my question about which large country or large society has ever followed your libertarian ideals.

None that were nation states held together by force.

All your questions does, rather than rebuke libertarian principles of liberty and individual responsibility is affirm all nation states are the antithesis of actual liberty. Some are worse than others, most are bad.

Your question is not a good one to refute why liberty is better than being dominated.

 

[CatHedral]

None that were nation states held together by force.

All your questions does, rather than rebuke libertarian principles of liberty and individual responsibility is affirm all nation states are the antithesis of actual liberty. Some are worse than others, most are bad.

Your question is not a good one to refute why liberty is better than being dominated.

It is actually a very good one. It attempts to bring you back into the domain of the possible.

Your last few posts illustrate the contradiction that is structurally part of your politics.

You say nation-states are evil since they all rely on at least some coercion.

Yet almost everyone has contact with society. We call the others hermits, and they are generally not engines of social progress.

So pretty much everyone lives in a nation-state. The dialectic comes together as “a serious departure from reality is a precondition of Rob Roy’s beliefs”.

Where it steps from sad to rude is when you browbeat someone here for not sharing the delusion.

 

[Rob Roy]

It is actually a very good one. It attempts to bring you back into the domain of the possible.

Your last few posts illustrate the contradiction that is structurally part of your politics.

You say nation-states are evil since they all rely on at least some coercion.

Yet almost everyone has contact with society. We call the others hermits, and they are generally not engines of social progress.

So pretty much everyone lives in a nation-state. The dialectic comes together as “a serious departure from reality is a precondition of Rob Roy’s beliefs”.

Where it steps from sad to rude is when you browbeat someone here for not sharing the delusion.

So you're saying that my view is impossible and that a coercion based government IS possible, therefore it's what should be focused on as the only thing practical?

Okay. That's easily proven false. Silly even.

If governments are supposed to exist to protect people from people who might use force against them etc. , that provides the self evidence that the purpose of government is impossible to achieve under the present scheme. You can't have an entity based in coercion (government in present form) be the thing that will also protect people from coercion. That's impossible. I hope you're at least willing to concede that obvious point.

Any society trying to achieve protection for everyone from those who coerce but then proceeds to embrace a system based in coercion is a self contradicting society. Social progress is a meaningless virtue signal when it uses an operational means not congruent with the desired outcome. In that case, it's not any kind of refutation or proof of your babble, it's just noise and word salad that doesn't buttress the lame argument.

I don't browbeat, I help people discover truths.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

It is actually a very good one. It attempts to bring you back into the domain of the possible.

Your last few posts illustrate the contradiction that is structurally part of your politics.

You say nation-states are evil since they all rely on at least some coercion.

Yet almost everyone has contact with society. We call the others hermits, and they are generally not engines of social progress.

So pretty much everyone lives in a nation-state. The dialectic comes together as “a serious departure from reality is a precondition of Rob Roy’s beliefs”.

Where it steps from sad to rude is when you browbeat someone here for not sharing the delusion.

and...welcome to the club....you are about the 15th, maybe 20th person to say the exact same thing. maybe this time he'll actually hear what you're saying, and realize that his entire social construct could never exist in reality...but i fucking doubt it. happy new year.

 

[CatHedral]

So you're saying that my view is impossible and that a coercion based government IS possible, therefore it's what should be focused on as the only thing practical?

Okay. That's easily proven false. Silly even.

If governments are supposed to exist to protect people from people who might use force against them etc. , that provides the self evidence that the purpose of government is impossible to achieve under the present scheme. You can't have an entity based in coercion (government in present form) be the thing that will also protect people from coercion. That's impossible. I hope you're at least willing to concede that obvious point.

Any society trying to achieve protection for everyone from those who coerce but then proceeds to embrace a system based in coercion is a self contradicting society. Social progress is a meaningless virtue signal when it uses an operational means not congruent with the desired outcome. In that case, it's not any kind of refutation or proof of your babble, it's just noise and word salad that doesn't buttress the lame argument.

I don't browbeat, I help people discover truths.

The point you’re asking me to concede I will do so under one condition: that you also concede that you are continuing to describe the impossible as though it were, insulting everybody’s intelligence. Barter or be ignored.

 

[Rob Roy]

The point you’re asking me to concede I will do so under one condition: that you also concede that you are continuing to describe the impossible as though it were, insulting everybody’s intelligence. Barter or be ignored.

Truth concedes to nothing. Whether you concede to my point or not, it remains true.

Not sure what you're asking me to concede to. If it's conceding to that which is impossible is somehow superior to that which is possible? If that's it, no thanks, I will not concede to that.

Barter is the lubrication of a peaceful soicety