Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
hide menu

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Highest Rated Top Rated Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds


Per page:
Order:
Latest users (4): feelythefeel, jewishcommunazi, lulzformalaysiaair, youregaylol, anonymous(23).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#22335 - feelythefeel ONLINE (01/29/2013) [-]
Purely regarding the economic well being and overall stability of a society without considering other factors, is it generally worthwhile to make a switch from any form of religious state to a state of secularism, assuming that this would take place before secularism becomes a global standard (Say, during or earlier than the societies equivalent of the renaissance)?
#22379 to #22335 - repostsrepost (01/29/2013) [-]
Depends what you mean by secularism. You can have a secular state that stomps out any individual religious belief that it feels threatens its secular mandate. Similar to policies enacted by many communist states. Such a society would be little different from religious states in the Middle Ages. The ideology would be different but the result the same. But if you are referring to a secular state that tolerates all religious and nonreligious beliefs then I would agree. But that degree of toleration and coexistence can easily exist in a religious state as well. In short, whether they are religious or secular is irrelevant, it's all about the type of government that exists.
User avatar #22377 to #22335 - lecherouslad (01/29/2013) [-]
Are you asking if it's worth our money to secure the freedom of an individual's religion? Because that would entirely depend on the opinion of the speaker.
Yes, I believe that secularism is a noncore expenditure IF you value diversity and individual rights to retain such diversity. However it is non-essential to the operation of a government.
to summarize, potatoe.
User avatar #22329 - frozo (01/29/2013) [-]
So explain why graduated income tax is necessary. If I'm rich, why do I want to pay more money just because I worked harder? It would make sense if it was a flat amount but a percentage scales already from the amount of money you have.

Also, some French millionaire moved to Russia and got citizenship cause France got 70% taxes on him. Russia has like 15%.

Keep it civil peeps.
#22330 to #22329 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/29/2013) [-]
Because its not feasible to tax someone who literally earns just enough money to survive. To someone earning 10k a year, a 10% tax could literally mean homelessness or not, but to someone earning 100k a year a 20% tax isn't going bankrupt them at all.

Furthermore its a myth that all who earn more work harder. Some do, true, but some were born lucky. Take Palin for example. She earns who the fuck knows, but its a hell of a lot more than my school's janitor and that dude works close to 60 hours a week doing hard work. Take me; I'm a computer science and math major. I can expect to make 60k the year I graduate but thats still nothing compared to what CEOs make, and yet they know very little compared to me and other classmates.
+1
#22303 - aklidic **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#22297 - sirthomasburr (01/28/2013) [-]
Hey everyone, I was really board in Politics today so I drew up a new system of Government based of the British Parliamentary style of Government. Things like the Monarchy and the names of the branches of the Legislature give it away, but have a look and tell me what you think/point out any glaring errors or terrible flaws with it.
User avatar #22315 to #22297 - pianoasis (01/29/2013) [-]
The funny thing is, when you remove the center of the triangle, it still functions XD
#22409 to #22315 - sirthomasburr (01/29/2013) [-]
Lol, true, but I wouldn't want to upset the political establishment too much with a republic, we Brits are fond of old Queenie and she gets us a hell of a lot of money every year
#22285 - finni (01/28/2013) [-]
A summery of this thread:
User avatar #22301 to #22285 - pebar (01/28/2013) [-]
If people were able to stick to their own state with the legislation they want, there wouldn't be massive shitstorms all the time. California already has an assault weapons ban and I couldn't care less because I don't live there. But now that fucktard who doesn't even know basic history wants that ban across the whole US. Democracies are great, at least for small communities. But when we have a massive country like ours, there's the tyranny of the majority idea when controversial laws are passed with 51%. If people with similar interests grouped together and formed smaller laws, we wouldn't have this issue. That's the whole point of having our country split into states in the first place. Our country was intended to be more like a strong alliance of small countries with free trade with the federal government setting only the basic guidelines, ie the constitution. But now time and time again the federal government has done things it wasn't meant to have the authority to do using the all powerful commerce clause. Regulating interstate commerce is part of its duty, yes, but as long as it deals with.... you know.... actual commerce.

TL;DR - the federal government meddles too much in state affairs and that's why we have these huge national debates.
User avatar #22298 to #22285 - duudegladiator (01/28/2013) [-]
except for the fact that guns are not used for only hunting.....
User avatar #22201 - eight (01/28/2013) [-]
Would a world without laws preventing violence be more peaceful? Let me explain.

Laws are supposed to stop people from doing socially unacceptable things. Yet, laws that are supposed to prevent killing and robbery do not prevent it from happening. Laws also prevent revenge by the victims.

My point is, what if we took it away? If we went by a vigilante point of view, that every crime deserves an equal punishment, wouldn't crime be lessened?

Imagine this scenario:
A robber breaks into a home, steals stuff, is confronted by a child living in the home and the robber shoots the child who was screaming for help. He gets away only to be picked up by the police. The law protects the criminal from any vengeance by the victims family.
Imagine the same scenario, but that robber isn't handcuffed because there are no laws to prevent him from stealing. The father wants revenge for his sons death, hunts him down and kills him to balance everything out.

Would that man have even robbed the place knowing that there is not a law to protect him from being hunted down for his socially unacceptable act?
Think of it like guns. If a criminal knows somebody has a gun in their house, they will likely choose not to invade it. If criminal knows they can be hunted down for any crime they commit, would they choose to do it?

Obviously some people will ALWAYS be criminals, but I am saying without laws preventing violence there might be less due to fear that any action you take can be punished to any degree by the people around you. People would think twice before doing something bad.
I hope I am being clear enough.
User avatar #22290 to #22201 - pebar (01/28/2013) [-]
According to the social contract theory, governments form when people give up certain rights to greater ensure the rest. The laws against murder are there so that instead of it being a 1v1 issue that could potentially involve others, like families who want more revenge, or the avenger killing more people than he should, it becomes the murderer vs the community. The community also doesn't allow the victim or his family to seek justice on their own because that would only lead to more deaths.

People still remain armed but there are very strict limits on the use of deadly force. The criminals are greatly discouraged if they think the victim may be armed (this is kinda turning into a gun control debate; oh well), but there are still laws providing further restriction.
User avatar #22292 to #22290 - eight (01/28/2013) [-]
I think the criminals would be equally discouraged if they know that there isn't a law protecting them from the people they wish to harm or take from.
User avatar #22294 to #22292 - pebar (01/28/2013) [-]
IDK about where you live but here in north dakota, the use of deadly force is permitted if (quoting the state code):

--When used in lawful self-defense, or in lawful defense of others, if such force is
necessary to protect the actor or anyone else against death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of a felony involving violence.

An individual is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to that individual or another when using deadly force if:
--The individual against whom the deadly force was used was in the process of
unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered and
remains within a dwelling, place of work, or occupied motor home or travel trailer
--The individual who uses deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an
unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had
occurred.

The presumption in subsection 1 may be rebutted by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual who used the deadly force did not have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to that individual or another
User avatar #22277 to #22201 - akkere (01/28/2013) [-]
Except then you'll have the people fall victim to organized crime, in which mobster-type groups and even simple street gangs will run the streets by having more firepower.

The idea of vigilantism seems like a good idea because it's fired up by fiction that depicts relatively trained professionals performing effective justice, against criminals that have no strategic capability.

Organized Crime groups are very much more capable to take out professionals, just as they would be able to incite fear into the community now that they acknowledge they don't have to worry about government forces intervening.

Yes, the system has its flaws. Yes, there's holes in the government forces. But saying "fuck this" and replacing it with a "solution" that only runs on a simple implication that the community will be filled with strong people capable of taking down organized crime is naive at best.
User avatar #22291 to #22277 - eight (01/28/2013) [-]
I disagree. I think if everybody fears the consequences of their actions, they will think twice about doing it. Laws do not prevent criminals from breaking them. If anything, it protects the criminals from the people who seek a just punishment. Criminals do not fear law breaking because often times the punishment does not fit the crime.

Prison sentence is more of a vacation for the destitute. It keeps them alive, gives them a job and even teaches them a skill...all for the price of time.
User avatar #22296 to #22291 - akkere (01/28/2013) [-]
Organized Mobs and Gangs won't.
They weren't afraid when their respective rivals groups were going to be out to kill them, they'll hardly be afraid now that they don't have any form of official organized law that would mount up to their established power.
Especially with government intervention being removed, the cities can now be turned into literal battlefields, causing blood shed that's not even worth the chance for vengeance, especially when most of the people wouldn't be capable of enacting vengeance in the first place.

Just because the justice system has its flaws doesn't warrant to turn the cities into free war zones in which the gang leaders become warlords.
User avatar #22276 to #22201 - mykoira ONLINE (01/28/2013) [-]
well you just explained the idea of anarchy
User avatar #22196 - thirteenthdoctor (01/28/2013) [-]
I guess this is a good place to start this:
Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another? Why or why not?

Prove your point without getting angry

Go.
User avatar #22328 to #22196 - frozo (01/29/2013) [-]
My uncle had this thing when he thought that they shouldn't "marry", since by definition "marry" implies that it's a religious ritual between a man and a woman. Logically, it makes a bit of sense since it can be called something else.

But, I really don't care.
User avatar #22384 to #22328 - mexicandudeinsd (01/29/2013) [-]
i thought that too. i was like wasnt marriage started by religion or is religious
User avatar #22323 to #22196 - mexicandudeinsd (01/29/2013) [-]
i could care less, whatever they do in their life is not my problem, i just wouldnt like to see them like kissing in public and stuff like that. they can be gay but i dont like it when they start showing their "proudness" or thinking they get a better/special treatment just bcause theyre gay. (story time) i was walking out of the library and as i turned left i saw 2 guys kissing right outside and we were like wtf. the whole day people kept making fun of them. (fags and other names , puto joto maricon punal etc.) I dont mind when they do whatever they do but just not infront of me cause it kinda pisses me off and I Dont Care.
User avatar #22324 to #22323 - Ruspanic (01/29/2013) [-]
Does it also piss you off when straight couples kiss in public?
User avatar #22326 to #22324 - mexicandudeinsd (01/29/2013) [-]
no, but when gays do it its not natural, its weird
User avatar #22327 to #22326 - Ruspanic (01/29/2013) [-]
It's weird because it's not widespread or widely accepted in your society. That's subjective.
What do you mean it's not natural? How do you judge that, and why does it matter?
User avatar #22380 to #22327 - mexicandudeinsd (01/29/2013) [-]
guy and a girl are like natural or normal . something like that. in my society, its kinda wrong to be gay. thats the culture and how i was raised up as a mexican american. one friend of my mom is gay and when we go to their parties hes cool . he doesnt act gay and i barely remember that he is but hes cool. but when people start acting different it gets weird for others. something like that
User avatar #22381 to #22380 - Ruspanic (01/29/2013) [-]
I don't see how it might get weird, but it's not really something that can be helped. There's no reason to treat them differently for it, unless they're literally parading in the street in body paint. gay people don't choose to be romantically/sexually attracted to the same sex - who would make that choice, given the stigma surrounding homosexuality?
User avatar #22383 to #22381 - Ruspanic (01/29/2013) [-]
whoops, *can see. Not don't see.
User avatar #22382 to #22381 - mexicandudeinsd (01/29/2013) [-]
thats kinda like what im trying to say, i dont treat them differently, i just dont like them doing stuff infront of me were i can see, they can hold their hands for all i care, but nothing too much
User avatar #22385 to #22382 - Ruspanic (01/29/2013) [-]
Fair enough. Can't really blame you for that, as long as you respect their privacy.
User avatar #22320 to #22196 - mexicandudeinsd (01/29/2013) [-]
like a church marriage or civil partners?
User avatar #22322 to #22320 - Ruspanic (01/29/2013) [-]
Civil, presumably.
0
#22262 to #22196 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22307 to #22262 - coloredfolks (01/29/2013) [-]
you are just full of emotion on this topic. get real facts and then argue. emotions are subjective and are not worth anything
0
#22308 to #22307 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22310 to #22308 - coloredfolks (01/29/2013) [-]
you are the one blinded by "tolerance". once you age a little you will come to understand that there must be morals for this world to turn
User avatar #22321 to #22310 - Ruspanic (01/29/2013) [-]
Morality should be rational, not dogmatic.
-1
#22312 to #22310 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22313 to #22312 - coloredfolks (01/29/2013) [-]
how old are you? 14? emotions dont win arguments. stop projecting about your lack of faith. nobody cares. learn a little something about the faith that you are bashing. those were all punishments at the time. they didnt have a jail system or even DEMOCRACY.

who made the decision that the 15 year old girl cant fall in love (rationally) with the 30 year old dude? why cant the get married? why cant they have sex? who made that decision? your reasonings will be all about "feeling good about it" LOL .

something has to define your logic. that is called morals buddy.
0
#22314 to #22313 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22316 to #22314 - coloredfolks (01/29/2013) [-]
youre the cute one cause youre so simple :)

reread my comment please :) i said punishments change honey, not moralities

what about the 14 year old girl? is it right or wrong? is it moral or not? you are just handing the baton off to someone else. every argument comes from a moral stance and if you claim to have no morals then your arguments will waver in the wind.

i agree we evolve, science improves our lives and our technology. that is good. duh. adultery is ALWAYS bad. murder is ALWAYS bad.

slavery was never "moral" --feminist rights movements is not a "moral" movement.

those are cultural changes. I agree CULTURES CHANGE :) again, duh.
0
#22317 to #22316 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22318 to #22317 - coloredfolks (01/29/2013) [-]
they have equal rights. they can vote and do anything they want. it is not a civil RIGHT. it is an idea. bottom line.

so your definition of morality now hinges on harm. ok LOL

i really dont know alot about working on the sabbath and all that entailed. and you may be right. morality changes with culture. it is not right but it happens. same thing with looking at porn, it desensitized you. like blood and gore in a movie or grand theft auto. but that does not mean that it is right. there are reasons we had/have morals. they create a society that can function. lose your morals and nothing has any consequences and nothing means anything anymore. just like your example about harm being the only driving force in morality.
User avatar #22270 to #22262 - Ruspanic (01/28/2013) [-]
Name-calling does your credibility no good. You won't convince anyone that way, and if you think of your opponents in these terms you will blind yourself to their arguments.
-3
#22271 to #22270 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22272 to #22271 - Ruspanic (01/28/2013) [-]
Okay, perhaps the best argument I have heard against gay civil marriage (though I've somewhat refuted in an earlier comment) is that government-sanctioned marriage is a public policy tool to encourage reproduction and stable families. Since gay people cannot naturally reproduce and don't usually opt to have or adopt children, and since many children with gay parents are stigmatized, the government does not have reason to extend legal benefits to same-sex unions.

Other people more collectivist than me will argue that upholding traditions is necessary to preserve social order and stability, that the erosion of long-held traditions destabilizes society and weakens the state. It's justified to sacrifice some individual freedoms for the good of the whole. Also, because same-sex couples can still cohabitate and have relationships and sex legally, they're not technically being denied any rights - just legal benefits that they're not necessarily entitled to.

It's true that people who make these arguments are often religious and/or homophobic, but that doesn't mean all arguments they make are necessarily so.
#22281 to #22272 - pebar (01/28/2013) [-]
Encouraging reproduction has never been an issue; humans love sex. Marriage is encouraged because it says the father can't just leave, like every other species. When two people stick together to raise a family, it's easier (efficient for the species is a different issue). At least that's how it used to be.

IMO, nowadays it's all about trust issues. Getting married makes it so your lover can't just wake up one morning, decides she wants something different in her life, and walk out the door. Divorce rates are around 50%; it's hardly a "holy bond" anymore. If gays want to get married, why not? It's not like marriage would become more corrupted than it already is.

Besides, the US was founded on the idea that people from around the world could live together in peace no matter what you believed. It's like a haven. If homosexuality is frowned upon, it's pretty much against that philosophy.
User avatar #22283 to #22281 - Ruspanic (01/28/2013) [-]
All decent counterarguments.

The above views are not my own, they're just examples of secular and not-necessarily-bigoted arguments against gay marriage.
-1
#22273 to #22272 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22274 to #22273 - Ruspanic (01/28/2013) [-]
Okay, explain why.
-1
#22275 to #22274 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22282 to #22275 - Ruspanic (01/28/2013) [-]
The other thing I forgot to mention is this issue of rights. First of all, natural rights cannot be given, because they're inherent. Legal marriage is not a natural right because it's a legal construct that doesn't exist in nature. It's a legal right (which can be given), but legal rights are whatever the law says they are and granting more of them to more people is not always a good thing. Maybe in this case, but not always.

I would say that giving some legal rights to some people would degrade society - a right to own slaves, for instance.
User avatar #22280 to #22275 - Ruspanic (01/28/2013) [-]
1. Yes- that's the same counterargument I made below - but some people are still denied marriage licences in the interest of any children they might have. For instance, some states require(d) STD blood tests before issuing marriage licenses, and sometimes the issuance is left to the discretion of the judge. Of course reproduction isn't forced, but as the argument goes, offering legal benefits and recognition to marriage, a union that already existed but was not always legally-sanctioned, is a means of encouragement but not coercion. Think of it as an incentive, a carrot but not a stick. And because it is an incentive, there's no need to offer it to everyone. Many people don't know if they're infertile when they marry or change their mind about children during their marriage, whereas gay couples can never conceive naturally.
Not an argument I buy, but the reasoning is not terrible. Or inherently homophobic.

2. Though that might be the implication of the second argument, that's because of the broader premise that erosion of traditions (such as the traditional definition of marriage) erodes societal unity. I don't like this argument, but it's a common one: if half the people in a country had one set of traditions and the other half had another set, the country would be less united and less stable than if everyone observed the same traditions.
The argument may be fallacious or invalid, and you're right to call that out, but that doesn't make it inherently homophobic.

Anyway, this is all a bit of a tangent. My original point was that calling people "homophobic religitards" simply for opposing gay marriage can only be counterproductive. Better to refute their arguments, or say nothing.
-1
#22309 to #22280 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22257 to #22196 - Ruspanic (01/28/2013) [-]
Yes.
I don't really give a shit if churches allow them to marry, but as long as there is legally-sanctioned marriage (i.e. civil marriage) it should be accessible to adult same-sex couples. gay couples may not be able to procreate naturally with each other, but they are still capable of adoption or having kids via artificial insemination. If the purpose of legally sanctioned marriage is to encourage stable families for raising children, it seems inconsistent to exclude committed gay couples while including infertile and childless couples.
There's also the issue of joint ownership of property, hospital visitation rights, etc - any couple committed enough to get married (certain celebrities notwithstanding) should have those benefits available to them.
I don't buy the tradition argument because I feel the government has no duty to enforce tradition and that traditions should not be imposed on people who don't wish to abide by them. And no, Christianity does not have a monopoly on marriage and does not get to dictate the terms of everyone's marriage.
User avatar #22219 to #22196 - coloredfolks (01/28/2013) [-]
ok, here lets try another tactic. if gay marriages were allowed then what is there to stop the marriage of adults and children?
0
#22263 to #22219 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22305 to #22263 - coloredfolks (01/29/2013) [-]
why get emotional?
0
#22306 to #22305 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22232 to #22219 - paranoidwzy (01/28/2013) [-]
isn't this happening in places in Africa and India?
User avatar #22222 to #22219 - thirteenthdoctor (01/28/2013) [-]
Because a child is different than a fully grown man.

Two people over the age of 18. What is so hard to wrap your head around?
0
#22732 to #22222 - aklidic **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22205 to #22196 - coloredfolks (01/28/2013) [-]
no, not with the current relationship with marriage and the state. marriage should have never been made part of the state. it is a religious ideal that has meaning and purpose in that concept. you can not have gay marriage in religion. there are many examples in the bible against homosexuality and it should remain that way in the church. but marriage is not a homosexual concept. it has and will always be defined as a man and a woman joined in union together.
User avatar #22260 to #22205 - Ruspanic (01/28/2013) [-]
Churches can define marriage however they want. Some churches still deny interracial marriage.
But church marriages have no legal significance and are irrelevant to the gay marriage debate.
User avatar #22207 to #22205 - thirteenthdoctor (01/28/2013) [-]
Actually, you're wrong. You're assuming that the only religion is Christianity. There are thousands of other religions, and these religions also have marriage. Cultures throughout time have had accepted homosexual relationships and marriages.
User avatar #22208 to #22207 - coloredfolks (01/28/2013) [-]
no religion has accepted homosexual marriage. culture yes. and it is and will always be culture that destroys and degrades morals.
User avatar #22209 to #22208 - thirteenthdoctor (01/28/2013) [-]
What are you talking about?
There are many religions that have had homosexual marriages, and have accepted homosexuality, in some cases almost revering it.
User avatar #22210 to #22209 - coloredfolks (01/28/2013) [-]
name 5

please
User avatar #22212 to #22210 - thirteenthdoctor (01/28/2013) [-]
1: My own, the Anishenabe
2: The Celtic people/religion
3: the Navajo
4: The Ju'/hoansi

Many Native American tribes (which all have their own religion) also accept homosexuality.
User avatar #22217 to #22212 - coloredfolks (01/28/2013) [-]
3: incorrect search "Navajos Override gay-Marriage Ban Veto" doesnt seem like they want to be fags all that bad
4: incorrect "Oral and anal sex, sadomasochism, and coitus interrupts are not sexual practices of the Dobe Ju/hoansi. Lesbians and gays can be found within this society; however, this is not common."

i didnt really look into the first two because your last two points are both false LOL

but im sure that they are jsut more iterations of the same thing. a culture that in the past has never supported gay rights but now that they have assimilated with modern culture are being pressed to do so. (just like the christian instituion of marriage!)

have a nice day
User avatar #22221 to #22217 - thirteenthdoctor (01/28/2013) [-]
The source I had (A Cultural Anthropology textbook) was where I got the information about the Ju'/hoansi.

And with the Navajo, I meant the religion, not the current tribe politics.

I can see that, because you don't want to search into any of my other sources, that you are either a troll, or you just wish to stay ignorant.
User avatar #22227 to #22221 - coloredfolks (01/28/2013) [-]
believe every thing you read/hear? (it's ok, it's not just you) LOL

and i think that politics are simply a tangible express of beliefs so..........

why waste time on more false allegations? the half i did research are incorrect. (i sensed a pattern LOL)
User avatar #22229 to #22227 - thirteenthdoctor (01/28/2013) [-]
A college textbook is more reliable than an internet article, in my opinion.

No, they are not the same as the beliefs. The religion differs from the tribe. It's like saying the American government acts with Christianity in mind.

You searched two out of five. That isn't half.
User avatar #22248 to #22229 - coloredfolks (01/28/2013) [-]
you numbered 4. half of 4 is two.

and i would not agree with you on the college textbook thing .....especially if it is a anthropology textbook (extreme bias in the college/university atmosphere)

and people vote on their beliefs. i hope they do at least.
User avatar #22200 to #22196 - eight (01/28/2013) [-]
Of course. I'll leave them to their business if they leave me to mine. I don't have to watch their gay kissing or sex. If it bothers me I can turn my head. We do not have the right to tell others what they can or can not do with their own free will.
User avatar #22199 to #22196 - paintbucket (01/28/2013) [-]
i really don't care anymore.
i just want it legalized so the whining can stop.
#22197 to #22196 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/28/2013) [-]
Yes- because why shouldn't they?
User avatar #22193 - paranoidwzy (01/28/2013) [-]
I hate talking about the gun issue but I have done some research about where most gun accidents happen. Most of it happens when so-called "law abiding citizens" get pissed of decides to use their gun because of they had an argument with someone and it went out of control. I am just happy to say that this is a well-researched fact now that this is where most of it happens it’s not gang violence or violent crimes the is the most common reason behind most deaths or injuries of guns.
#22395 to #22193 - finni (01/29/2013) [-]
I don't agree with you, but I thumb you up because I don't think it's right to thumb you down unless you go all trolling and shit like if you say "YOU GUYS ARE SUPER DUMB AND CAN GO FUCK YOURSELF! GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED YOUR FUCKING RETARDS" that kind of stuff. Just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean you should be thumbed down, especially not in this place.    
   
It's not fun to be here if everybody agrees. Having people who disagree makes for debates and that's the point of this thread.
I don't agree with you, but I thumb you up because I don't think it's right to thumb you down unless you go all trolling and shit like if you say "YOU GUYS ARE SUPER DUMB AND CAN GO FUCK YOURSELF! GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED YOUR FUCKING RETARDS" that kind of stuff. Just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean you should be thumbed down, especially not in this place.

It's not fun to be here if everybody agrees. Having people who disagree makes for debates and that's the point of this thread.
User avatar #22194 to #22193 - paranoidwzy (01/28/2013) [-]
And the most common way of an adult to kill themself in the US is with the help of a firearm
User avatar #22279 to #22194 - pebar (01/28/2013) [-]
People use a gun for suicide because it's the most effect tool to get it done quick and painlessly. If a person truly wants to die, there are many other ways.

And if a person wants to die, don't they have the right to chose the fate of their own life? IMO they do, which is why I wouldn't include suicide by gun in any gun violence statistic.
#22198 to #22194 - paintbucket (01/28/2013) [-]
japan has a higher suicide rate than the US
so that argument is invalid. if you going to do it, you'll find a way.
i'd also like to see the stats that back up your first claim
gun accidents are less common than slipping in the bathtub.
User avatar #22226 to #22198 - paranoidwzy (01/28/2013) [-]
Jeremy Clarkson's Inventions That Changed the World - (1 of 5) The Gun

paste this in YouTube and watch it from 50:00 FJ dose not allow me to put more links
User avatar #22286 to #22226 - paintbucket (01/28/2013) [-]
no, that is an opinion piece.
nothing worth anything.
here is a video for you
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg&feature=player_embedded
0
#22223 to #22198 - paranoidwzy has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22220 to #22198 - paranoidwzy (01/28/2013) [-]
www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nvdrs/
You need to login to view this link
[url deleted]
watch this from 50:00
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/08/doctor-guns.html
[url deleted]
User avatar #22288 to #22220 - paintbucket (01/28/2013) [-]
also written in the UK
meaningless to me.
User avatar #22287 to #22220 - paintbucket (01/28/2013) [-]
the pdf is from the late 90s.
#22192 - pebar (01/28/2013) [-]
huehuehue
User avatar #22183 - byposted (01/27/2013) [-]
www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/27/iran-sentences-american-pastor-saeed-abedini-to-8-years-in-prison/

Christian pastor Saeed Abedini, an American imprisoned in Iran on charges of evangelizing, was sentenced this morning to eight years in prison.

"We condemn Iran's continued violation of the universal right of freedom of religion and we call on the Iranian authorities to release Mr. Abedini."
-US National Security Council

When the US is threatening to nuke Iran over a peaceful nuclear program to appease one of Iran's enemies, I don't see what they are trying to accomplish by denouncing them. Iran is under state-Islam; the pastor knew what he was getting into by doing controversial things in a hostile country.
User avatar #22187 to #22183 - eight (01/28/2013) [-]
This is true. Iran is basically peaceful. Israel, the U.S. NATO, they are all trying to condemn Iran as a terrorist filled, out of control, war mongering nation who wants to obliterate everyone and control the world. This couldn't be farther from the truth. I can't remember why that is, I think it has to do with their vast oil reserves and their refusal to adhere to the U.S. currency.

As for their threatening remarks, look over their history, look at how much they have had to defend their own country from others while rarely if ever starting a conflict themselves in the past 150 years. It is no wonder why they want nuclear power, they need a deterrent. I honestly doubt that the we will let them achieve it though. I smell a false flag coming.
-1
#22206 to #22187 - coloredfolks has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22230 to #22206 - eight (01/28/2013) [-]
Funny how you would rather insult me than attempt to challenge what is basically fact.

You either know nothing of what I speak and therefore cannot come up with a valid point to argue my own, or you know that I am right and it just pisses you off.
User avatar #22179 - eight (01/27/2013) [-]
Homeland Security buying 7,000 Assault Rifles?
You need to login to view this link
#22185 to #22179 - duudegladiator (01/27/2013) [-]
bunch of fucking hypocrits.
bunch of fucking hypocrits.
User avatar #22176 - techketzer (01/27/2013) [-]
This mess is a place.
#22152 - byposted (01/27/2013) [-]
www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/25/us-poland-homosexuals-idUSBRE90O0LU20130125

Poland's parliament defeated draft laws on Friday that would have given limited legal rights to homosexual couples, a setback for liberals trying to challenge conservative moral attitudes in the devoutly Catholic country.

Many Polish opponents of state recognition for same-sex partnerships say it is wrong to encourage unions that cannot produce children, and so do nothing to fix the country's declining population.

Is there any benefit to giving homosexuals the right to buttfuck under union except just that? Poland has a birthrate only a scrape over Germany's but still these social libturds are lost in the paradox of advancing, what they call, "progress." The institution of marriage and the tax benefits that come with it are meant to encourage child-bearing, of which homosexuals are incapable.

Not surprising but Poland is making progress – it now has an out gay man and a transgender woman in parliament.
It also has two negroes, one of which came during Communism (University Program). Unfortunately, Poland is in for massive immigration in the coming decades, having been faced by its neighbors to the West already. This is what the above means by, "progress." Fundamentally, losing your national identity and decaying into a model America. Just as Paris and London look nothing like the capital of the nation they represent, more like Istanbul or Abuja, Warsaw will be drowned in "foreign workers" and transgender people; progress.
#22188 to #22152 - feelythefeel ONLINE (01/28/2013) [-]
How is the special ed room/mothers basement/prison commons where you live, guy?
How is the special ed room/mothers basement/prison commons where you live, guy?
User avatar #22153 to #22152 - afriendlyanon (01/27/2013) [-]
All I see is looking at the standpoint economically, which is certainly needed, and without tolerance to human beings who don't happen to be heterosexual. Grow up and realize they are people with inherent rights who may want to adopt and have a family.
User avatar #22154 to #22153 - byposted (01/27/2013) [-]
Grow up and realize they are people with inherent rights who may want to adopt and have a family.
A very small minority of homosexuals actually come to adopt children. Homosexuals tend to lead degenerate lifestyles which are centered around having sex. They can do that, but should not have tax benefits to promote such a lifestyle.

The above is why homosexuals are many times more likely to get STDs.

A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.



User avatar #22157 to #22154 - blazingpelt (01/27/2013) [-]
A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.

This study was done in the fucking '70s. It also reads, “. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”
User avatar #22162 to #22157 - byposted (01/27/2013) [-]
That proves that open-homosexuals tend to be the most deviant. Only those who are hiding in the closet wouldn't want to participate in the study.
User avatar #22155 to #22154 - afriendlyanon (01/27/2013) [-]
>Centered around sex

You are trying to make the argument that homosexuals are on par with animals by saying that.

The point is many male and females have a relationship centered around sex. Does that make them on par with animals? No. By having sex frequently does that mean they are going to have children or want them in the first place? Not necessarily.

I also like how you target the minorities in the Capital Cities of Countries. Guess what, if they are contributing to the economy and leading a life responsibly, then there is no reason to resent their settlement.

Also, just how biased and/or fabricated is your quote's sample, hmm?
User avatar #22159 to #22155 - byposted (01/27/2013) [-]
You are trying to make the argument that homosexuals are on par with animals by saying that.
Have you ever been to San Fransisco, happening to walk by the "gay community?"

The point is many male and females have a relationship centered around sex. Does that make them on par with animals? No. By having sex frequently does that mean they are going to have children or want them in the first place? Not necessarily.
Try not to look at Poland's situation under an economic model. It is a country with a culture and a religion. America is a different story: no culture or religion.

I was speaking of the institution of marriage to begin with. Only 4% of homosexual "couples" adopt children. Is the measly amount of adoptions Poland would gain worth trashing tradition? Also, that is implying that under a union, Poland would give homosexuals the right to adopt.

I also like how you target the minorities in the Capital Cities of Countries. Guess what, if they are contributing to the economy and leading a life responsibly, then there is no reason to resent their settlement.
Except they aren't minorities. Capital cities which have been around for centuries as the center of the nation, now have a native minority population. London, Paris, soon Berlin.

Again, you're talking about economics. What is the point of differentiating between the UK, Germany and France with borders if they have minority-native populations, which are coming to all three?

Also, just how biased and/or fabricated is your quote's sample, hmm?
Read and weep.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1


User avatar #22164 to #22159 - afriendlyanon (01/27/2013) [-]
I have. They hit on me. Big woop. They were nice enough and without a shadow of a doubt human.

Every place in the world has a culture. Not every country has or needs a religion as it is mostly outdated. Telling me to not look at it economically is like telling a wolf to treat a pair of rabbit's humping as another pair of wolves. Once again, how biased is your data, because I am pretty sure it is a much higher statistic than that. Also, if two homosexual men or women are living together and have or are planning to adopt children then that means they are a family.

They are minorities until their population rises beyond a certain percentage of the census. As for the point of differentiating...oh, I don't know, maybe the culture seeing as every nation has a different culture as that is what makes them a nation.

Seeing as your source(s) are over ten years old, they can no longer be considered reliable for looking at the present. That is a fact.

Also, stop highlighting other people's quotes. Pretty sure most of us can figure out the flow of your argument.
User avatar #22168 to #22164 - byposted (01/27/2013) [-]
They are minorities until their population rises beyond a certain percentage of the census. As for the point of differentiating...oh, I don't know, maybe the culture seeing as every nation has a different culture as that is what makes them a nation.

I will quote one of your heroes, probably, and have him discredit you.

A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.
-Joseph Stalin

Mass immigration to western countries turns what were once "historically constituted" cities by ethnicity to something different. Historically, the main ethnicity of a nation becoming the minority was a sign of a declining civilization (See Ancient Greece and Rome). Now, Stalin, in this publication, wrote a small paragraph on why "race" isn't a part of the nation. He said that the, "modern Italian nation was formed from Romans, Teutons, Etruscans, Greeks, Arabs, and so forth. The French nation was formed from Gauls, Romans, Britons, Teutons, and so on. The same must be said of the British, the Germans and others, who were formed into nations from people of diverse races and tribes."
Spot the fallacy in this quote. The Teutons destroyed the Roman empire during their raids, for one. Rome only used Greece's influence in art, for two.

Mass immigration and the sudden displacement of a nation's people in the span of less than a century certainly doesn't provide for stability.

Many immigrants don't even bother learning the language of the native. Look at France especially. Their immigration laws are the most liberal of Europe, arguably.

And finally for culture. The sudden displacement of a nation's people in the span of less than a century destroys culture. Look at America. Ever since mass-immigration took root the traditional culture of its people has dramatically changed. From hollywood, to the music industry, to consumerism.

#22166 to #22164 - byposted (01/27/2013) [-]
Also, stop highlighting other people's quotes.
Picture related.

I have. They hit on me. Big woop. They were nice enough and without a shadow of a doubt human.
I saw fat men walking around naked, but okay.

Telling me to not look at it economically is like telling a wolf to treat a pair of rabbit's humping as another pair of wolves. Once again, how biased is your data, because I am pretty sure it is a much higher statistic than that.
You were saying that the small amount of economic gain caused by homosexuals adopting children would be worth Poland giving the rights to a union. I say that's not true considering Poland isn't some conglomerate of individualists like the USA.

Actually 4% of adoptions universally, in America, are via gay "couples."

1 in 6 gay "couples," or 16%, have adopted a child in the US according to a study:

You need to login to view this link

There are studies which show possible negative effects of being raised in such households. For example, children raised from houses in which the father has a relationship with another male, are shown to be at the highest risk of depression. Whileas children in whose parents are Lesbians are the most likely to be sexually abused. Children who are raised by homosexual couples are more likely to commit suicide.

You need to login to view this link
User avatar #22169 to #22166 - afriendlyanon (01/27/2013) [-]
K.

This cool story brought to you by Bro.inc.

I never said anything about economic gain, so please, try and revisit the older posts. Also, are you trying to say Poland has a hive~attitude? And your two statistics make absolutely no sense seeing as 4 and 16 aren't equivalent.

Now let us see, the depression could stem from loss of birth parents to bullying for having homosexual parents. There are more variables than just having homosexual parents and it could very well be a Coincidental relationship.
User avatar #22172 to #22169 - byposted (01/27/2013) [-]
Poland is a devoutly Catholic and homogenous country.

And your two statistics make absolutely no sense seeing as 4 and 16 aren't equivalent.
Reread that. 4% of foster children are adopted by gays. 16% of gays adopt.

Now let us see, the depression could stem from loss of birth parents to bullying for having homosexual parents. There are more variables than just having homosexual parents and it could very well be a Coincidental relationship.
There are more studies coming on the subject which will look into causation.
User avatar #22171 to #22167 - byposted (01/27/2013) [-]
Among the problems Sherkat identified is the paper’s definition of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers”—an aspect that has been the focus of much of the public criticism. A woman could be identified as a “lesbian mother” in the study if she had had a relationship with another woman at any point after having a child, regardless of the brevity of that relationship and whether or not the two women raised the child as a couple.
If anything, that would pool some of the statistics from the "Single mother" panel. It doesn't matter. I do agree that it was a bit dumb, the terminology. But it doesn't do much harm.

It doesn't mention much else in terms of critique except liberal crocodile tears.

User avatar #22163 to #22159 - blazingpelt (01/27/2013) [-]
>family research council

Yeah, you're a troll.
User avatar #22165 to #22163 - byposted (01/27/2013) [-]
So you are disagreeing with all the citations at the link? I could have linked you to a Reddit thread or to You need to login to view this link and you would consider that good, am I right?

Here's some interesting ones:

Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" typically means something radically different from marriage.

In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that in a study of a hundred-fifty-six males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years,

Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[13]

In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[14]


HIV/AIDS Among Homosexuals. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is responsible for causing AIDS, for which there exists no cure.

"In 1999, for example, most of the women (40 percent) reported with AIDS were infected through heterosexual exposure to HIV.[40] That number is actually higher, as "historically, more than two-thirds of AIDS cases among women initially reported without identified risk were later reclassified as heterosexual transmission."[41]

· Homosexuals with HIV are at increased risk for developing other life-threatening diseases. A paper delivered at the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health reported that homosexual men with HIV have "a 37-fold increase in anal cancer, a 4-fold increase in Hodgkin's disease (cancer of the lymph nodes), a 2.7-fold increase in cancer of the testicles, and a 2.5 fold increase in lip cancer."[42]
0
#22151 - byposted has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22148 - roliga ONLINE (01/27/2013) [-]
Biden has no fucking idea what he's talking about...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCWYuxo01lM
User avatar #22130 - airguitar (01/27/2013) [-]
Ok, I am a libertarian (socially liberal and fiscally conservative) and am studying economics in university. I like to think that I am very open minded. Concerning the gun issues which everyone loves to dwell on, I don't really have strong feelings either way. However, when I scrolled below and read people saying "niggers" and "shitskins" are responsible for *whatever percent of crime*... that completely invalidated your argument to me.

Not because it is necessarily untrue that blacks are responsible for high murder rates (which is a hugely complex issue in the first place, tied to terrible inner-city public schooling and poor public policy, such as minimum wage, which further disadvantages blacks). That's not the issue, the issue is the obvious racism you have, which is clearly exposed with such language. Do you really expect me, or others for that matter, to respect your opinions when you cannot even hide your racial bias? I am not one who is "sensitive" to the language, it is just that in an environment which is ideally supposed to involve the discussion of politics, world news, and economics I am surprised this garbage is being posted.

I have had conversations with people I 100% disagree with on this board before and always tried to respond with class and an open-mind (even when they had no clue what they were talking about). If you want others to respect your opinion, I advise you to do the same. Otherwise, just keep slinging feces at whoever you want, I prefer to act civilized though. Lastly, I am very white myself.

This board seems different and more immature since I posted often on it (this past summer). Criticize me if you wish, just my thoughts.
User avatar #22331 to #22130 - arisaka (01/29/2013) [-]
There you fucking are. It's been forever since I've seen one of your posts.

I missed ya!
User avatar #22333 to #22331 - airguitar (01/29/2013) [-]
Haha, how is it going man? I just got kind of ticked off so wrote this rant of a post. Fun stuff.
User avatar #22393 to #22333 - arisaka (01/29/2013) [-]
That's basically half my posts here. You usually end up drowning in a sea of red thumbs (if you're a part of the left, anyways) but the relief of frustration is nice.
User avatar #22439 to #22393 - airguitar (01/30/2013) [-]
I was out-of-favor when I made huge posts back in the summer. You usually don't get down voted if you present your ideas in a well-planned way. The board wasn't quite as idiotic then though.
User avatar #22446 to #22439 - arisaka (01/30/2013) [-]
Yeah, true.

either way you could see why people would shit in my face
User avatar #22456 to #22446 - airguitar (01/30/2013) [-]
Your face is safe with me, sir!
#22150 to #22130 - byposted (01/27/2013) [-]
However, when I scrolled below and read people saying "niggers" and "shitskins" are responsible for whatever percent of crime... that completely invalidated your argument to me.
You're denying reality? I love how you try to make an excuse for black crime by, of all things, mentioning public schooling and "White Privilege." I was raised very poor, in a black ghetto, in one of their schools. I am not a criminal. Further, definitely not a "social liberal" like you.

Black schools seem to have the highest spending per capita in the US, like those in the District of Columbia, yet they still fail. Blacks just have a culture outside of institutionalized education. You can pour as much money into their edumacasion as you want, though that is not proven to solve a thing.

Ok, I am a libertarian
Oh, I see.
User avatar #22161 to #22150 - Ruspanic (01/27/2013) [-]
If it's all about inherent racial capabilities, why do black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean have higher achievement rates and lower crime rates than American-born blacks?
Especially considering that most American blacks have some white ancestry.
User avatar #22174 to #22161 - byposted (01/27/2013) [-]
Do you have a source? I am not denying, just asking.

African immigrants that come from the US are the most wealthy and well-off people in that region, you understand? Nobody claims that environment has nothing to do with social-behavior. Crime in correlation with poverty is something like 0.28.
User avatar #22184 to #22174 - Ruspanic (01/27/2013) [-]
Here's one source from the Population Reference Bureau:
www.prb.org/pdf07/62.4immigration.pdf
"Black immigrants have more education and have higher incomes than foreign-born Americans in general, or than U.S.-born African Americans. They are less likely to be in poverty or unemployed."

"Caribbean immigrants—who have well-established communities in a few U.S. cities—were referred to as a “model minority,” because they appeared to surpass U.S.-
born blacks: earning more money, entering more prestigious jobs, and experiencing less crime and unemployment." -though later research challenged these findings

"Interviews with second-generation West Indian children in New York revealed that the children’s attitudes about whites, their parents’ culture, and their future prospects often reflected their parents’ socioeconomic situation. Children from poor immigrant families identified most closely with U.S. black culture, felt racial prejudice more acutely, and were less optimistic about their futures than children from middle-class families."
Nothing too surprising here, but it does suggest that cultural environment and poverty play a very significant role. Most black immigrants did not actually live through segregation in America, and neither did their families, yet they if they live in poor black neighborhoods they internalize the feelings of victimization prevalent in those communities.
Consider black American families who have been living in such neighborhoods for generations. The poverty and underachievement began as a result of racial policies like segregation, and eventually that incorporates itself into the ghetto culture and becomes a self-propagating cycle of poverty and underachievement and crime and so on.
User avatar #22178 to #22174 - byposted (01/27/2013) [-]
to the US*
0
#22173 to #22161 - byposted has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22156 to #22150 - airguitar (01/27/2013) [-]
In no way did I assert that was the main reason society is the way it is, it is likely not even a major cause. I merely brought it up to show it is a very complex issue. I did not say that the said "percentages" were incorrect, I said that using hateful language merely exposes your/others bias and instantly portrays yourself as lacking maturity.

My grandfather came from a very poor family as well in Philadelphia. He was the only of twelve children to go to college and eventually became a dean in a highly respected University. I understand that environment and poor education does not decide one's fate. Instead, I brought up this point as a knock on public policy. I don't think there should be nearly as much government action, however if there is (inevitably) going to be some government action, it absolutely should be beneficial. My point is that is often not the case and public policy is complete crap, which in many cases makes life harder for those it is trying to benefit. I don't say this for any particular group's defense, I say it because it has empirically been found to be true.

Whatever your motive be, whether it is trolling, spreading hate, or you just love arguing, I don't really care for these kind of conversations. This board used to be wonderfully open-minded many months ago and I was just shocked to read your comments in contrast.
User avatar #22177 to #22156 - byposted (01/27/2013) [-]
I said that using hateful language merely exposes your/others bias and instantly portrays yourself as lacking maturity.
Codewords tend to make people pay attention and respond stupidly. Thus their fictitious sacraments of egalitarian rebuttal can be trampled on.

You do not try to disprove reality, which is great. I do not understand what you were going into with the "public policy" inquiry. What were you speaking of? Giving money to schools and minimum wage are not beneficial...?
User avatar #22190 to #22177 - airguitar (01/28/2013) [-]
Yes, but what is the point in trying to summon weak arguments? Political discussion, in my opinion, is the most enlightening when your positions are strongly challenged. This kind of debate is what helps you create better counter-arguments.

Concerning the latter point, I will address minimum wage as an example. Would you not agree that the stated goal of a minimum wage is to help the poorest citizens in any society? However, it has been proven time after time that increasing minimum wage also increases unemployment. This is a simple microeconomic trend. Since employers are required to pay their workers more, they have to hire less (or fire some current workers).

To be successful in the work force you must have human capital (made up of education and work experience). This makes life tough for those that attend inner-city schools. Many do not even deserve to be considered "schools". So from the get go, anyone who attends inner city public schools is disadvantaged in the work force because they lack human capital which was not provided to them but was to others. To make up for this disadvantage, those who attend these schools must gain real work experience if they want to climb the corporate ladder and be successful. In many cases, teenagers in this situation are willing to work for extremely low pay to gain experience and increase their status in life.

However, as I mentioned, minimum wage increases the unemployment rate. Data shows that the groups with the highest unemployment are #1, teenagers with disabilities and #2, black teenagers. Focusing on the latter group, it is well known that blacks make up a large portion of those who attend inner city schools. A higher minimum wage rate makes finding a job much harder for them since they received poor education. In this case, as is the case with a lot of public policy, those who were supposed to be helped ended up being the hardest hit.
User avatar #22191 to #22190 - airguitar (01/28/2013) [-]
I am NOT saying that this is a huge factor in the social status of blacks, whites, or whoever. I am using it as an example slightly related to what we were previously speaking about. Does this mean that bad schooling/minimum wage is responsible for higher black crime rates? No. Do I consider it one (of many) factors contributing to high black unemployment/crime rates? Yes, I think that is a safe assertion.
User avatar #22141 to #22130 - Ruspanic (01/27/2013) [-]
The racist stuff is mainly the same two users. I don't think they're trolls, but they're also not terribly concerned with their credibility because they're open about their racism and those views inform many of their political opinions. It's not just a bias.
User avatar #22158 to #22141 - airguitar (01/27/2013) [-]
What amazed me though, which I forgot to mention, is that his comments were thumbed up.. I just felt like the entire board has been losing credibility.
 Friends (0)