Too soon?
-
I can't believe I'm discussing whether or not it is wrong to kill someone for the crimes they may or may not ever commit...
Still on that "appeal to law" fallacy huh?
Since apparently you can't be arsed to look it up, here's a direct link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_law -
The saddest thing about it all. MAGA already blaming Dems. No one knows anything about the shooter or motive. But it's the Dems fault
-
That, and then immediately dog whistling about minorities. Fuck him.
Well he's in hell now.
-
It's my birthday today so hearing about it is one of the best birthday gifts
Happy Birthday!!
-
This post did not contain any content.
I was about to comment on how no-one ever actually uses the 2A to do any good but then I gathered from context that I've slept through half a news cycle.
Fkin a
-
They took the law into their own hands because the law does exist to serve victims, only oppressors. Yes, this means the violence all too present in the US has finally come to white conservatives. Deal with it.
By your tone, it sounds to me like you think i don't wholeheartedly agree. Which is incorrect.
If you take only that part of my comment, sure. Try reading the rest of it.
-
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
– the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America
It's not the law, but it is from the founders' cassus belli. Also in there is this
He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.
He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
That seems more to me a declaration of what is deserved, not where it comes from and who enforces it. In fact, it specifically says it's up to the people to reclaim those rights if taken.
What is given by god cannot be taken, so if the rights can be taken and must be defended...
-
The Biden/Harris admin acknowledged climate change, and appointed the first Native American to the position of Secretary of the Interior, who then approved the Willow Project (which climate scientists declared a world ending “carbon bomb”), and approved such a record number of fossil fuel extractions that the courts struck them down for not considering the climate impact.
Yes, he approved that. He also did all of this. In particular, I'd like to point out this part in the wiki:
"Some environmental organizations, including Sierra Club, Sunrise Movement, Earthjustice, and more, claim that President Biden took 322 actions to protect the environment—more than any other president in history."
Although I disagree that those actions are as equivalent as important as say the National Parks program for example. Either way, go ahead and show that the Trump admin has even mentioned the intention of doing anything similar. I'll wait. (You do realize this rhetoric only helps the fascists too, right? Just as much as pretending the DNC Dems are left wing).
The Biden admin’s CDC prematurely ended Covid guidelines, and let the ceo of Delta set their post-infection isolation guidelines. Biden’s FDA were approving drugs that they knew didn’t work, because they wanted to appease their pharma lobbyists.
To pretend that the Biden administration's actions were ANYTHING near as bad as Trump's is just a bad faith argument. It honestly just makes you seem like you're purposefully making the literal anti-science fascists seem not bad by pretending the two were even close, for fuck's sake. At least the dude knew basic fucking biology.
Yes, we heard non-stop about how Biden was the “most whatever President ever.” It’s wild that y’all can spot obvious bullshit when it’s Trump allies claiming he’s the “most something ever,” but you eat it up for a Dem.
You’re just as gullible as the MAGA Trump supporters, so don’t go thinking yourself any better.
-
Can cite specific examples of this?
Pick any single episode he published.
-
Biden deported them without going to the legal process? Like I'm pro-immigration so I get it. But there's a big difference from deporting people via the legal process. Versus picking up some guy who's a US citizen who has a tattoo of his mom on his shoulder. Calling him a gang member and then sending him to some other country to a slave prison without due process.
Neither Biden or Trump are good, but it's really hard to argue that things would be just as bad today under Biden or Harris then they are under Trump. And Trump's not even done with the first year of his second term.
LoL. “But he used the correct process for fascism!” You neoliberals are wild.
The Biden admin was absolutely illegally abusing immigrant detainees. You just don’t notice when it’s a Dem.
-
Yes i know, but it's not something you see everyday in HD and close up.
Most of the gore videos I saw as a teen didn't even come close to how clear this was and i saw a cartel beheading video.
Oh come now, many modern movies have way more realistic gore than a dribble of blood. The very act and effort required for a beheading should be many times more disturbing even at 280p than a dribble of blood in HD...
-
Charlie Kirk died defending the 2nd Amendment
The problem is he died a martyr, and someone else will just replace him. An example of some far right crazies, and fascists, debating Mr. Hasan.
It is also crazy how fast some youtubers are reporting on this.
But I agree, the U.S. is cooked. I only feel bad for Mr. Kirk's family, and not him.
-
That's the point. A gun's purpose is to kill.
And I was thinking of the victim being an animal that needs to be euthanized or something.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Eh... That's still a bad idea, especially in a society like the US, where guns are very normalized not for killing in many places. Requiring death as an entry fee would just be normalizing their use for killing. It wouldn't teach any sensible person something they don't already know except now killing is expected and normalized for gun owners...
Why desensitize a population to something that they should be sensitive about? Just like we should never require working at an abattoir in order to eat meat, we should never require killing to own a gun. It'll only backfire and make society more accepting of something you don't want.
-
Go fight, pussy. I look forward to reading about you in the news.
ahaha good job proving what a fucking nitwit you are...
-
Should his (possibly) millions of his supporters also die? Should they preemptively start killing people they view as threats to them? You know, since some people are saying that they should die for their opinions... you see how this goes? It's not hard to see how a zero sum game ends without any winners. That's why you have to compromise by at least not killing each other.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]OK woefully stupid it is, then...
You know they're TRYING to do those things you said, right? Why do you think they keep mentioning trans people every chance they get along side bad news?
You realize "there are people out there saying others should die for their opinions" IS CHARLIE AND HIS KIND, right?
You are utterly and completely missing the entire point of the paradox of tolerance... Charlie Kirk and his ilk are ALREADY fomenting intolerance. They're ALREADY planting the seeds of violence. Me noticing it and saying, "yes, these vile actors deserve to be stopped, even if it comes to the worst option" IS NOT the same as them inventing boogiemen like trans/gay/etc people out of thin air.
They WANT people to get violent towards innocents, and are doing many things to try and make it happen. Jist look how they practically celebrated the Pulse nightclub shooting... That makes them a valid target. These ARE the despicable people you're so afraid of. Why can you not see it?
-
Yes, we heard non-stop about how Biden was the “most whatever President ever.” It’s wild that y’all can spot obvious bullshit when it’s Trump allies claiming he’s the “most something ever,” but you eat it up for a Dem.
You’re just as gullible as the MAGA Trump supporters, so don’t go thinking yourself any better.
Oh look, deflection and avoiding to answer.
I figured, you're just another fascist troll pretending to be leftist. Either that or inadvertently carrying water for the far right.
-
Eh... That's still a bad idea, especially in a society like the US, where guns are very normalized not for killing in many places. Requiring death as an entry fee would just be normalizing their use for killing. It wouldn't teach any sensible person something they don't already know except now killing is expected and normalized for gun owners...
Why desensitize a population to something that they should be sensitive about? Just like we should never require working at an abattoir in order to eat meat, we should never require killing to own a gun. It'll only backfire and make society more accepting of something you don't want.
Why desensitize a population to something that they should be sensitive about?
Cynically, I think this has already happened. That horse has bolted.
Which is your say, I do agree with your argument, I just think it's already too late to argue it.
-
Oh look, deflection and avoiding to answer.
I figured, you're just another fascist troll pretending to be leftist. Either that or inadvertently carrying water for the far right.
Folks, we’ve got another Dem bot to tag.
-
That seems more to me a declaration of what is deserved, not where it comes from and who enforces it. In fact, it specifically says it's up to the people to reclaim those rights if taken.
What is given by god cannot be taken, so if the rights can be taken and must be defended...
Well you know the bastard, he's all "it's yours help yourself to it". Or it's just the rhetorical justification for the principles these people established their government. They aren't saying that physically you can't stop people from having these freedoms, but that there is no moral justification to deny them and that it is a moral right to attain them by force if necessary.
-
This post did not contain any content.
He's even promoting shooting people who try to take your rights away.
