|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
Rank #17655 on SubscribersLevel 224 Comments: Mind Blower
OfflineSend mail to alexusapi Block alexusapi Invite alexusapi to be your friend flag avatar
- Views: 2531Content was not found
38 8 Total: +30
- Views: 1423Dafuq
14 1 Total: +13
- Views: 470Be nice
14 3 Total: +11
- Views: 859Dancing chocolate baby
15 5 Total: +10
- Views: 616Just Eddie murphy. wait WTF
16 8 Total: +8
- Views: 1197Ponybro
8 4 Total: +4
latest user's comments
|#118 - i'm gonna go with the weird Japanese chick at the ba…||07/06/2014 on Admin is your principal||0|
|#20 - And anarchy is chaos? this is the most common fallacy made whe… [+] (2 new replies)||07/06/2014 on You have been enriched||+3|
#25 - schnizel (07/06/2014) [-]
No, you see, goverment shutdowns were pretty short and people knew that the gov was going to be back in a few days or weeks, and most of the services were still there. But who does happen when people know that there is going to be no goverment, no security, noone to keep the laws at hand and criminals at bay, what will happen then?
|#80 - Exactly, like it's here in iceland, there has literally been o…||06/30/2014 on (untitled)||+1|
|#59 - TFW they care too much||06/30/2014 on Ultra Cringe||+1|
|#57 - it's ******* weird but why should i care? [+] (2 new replies)||06/30/2014 on Ultra Cringe||+1|
|#15 - i'm all for guns but that argument is not solid. guns kill stu… [+] (21 new replies)||06/30/2014 on (untitled)||+2|
#290 - anonymous (06/30/2014) [-]
I used a spoon to squish a fly once, your argument is invalid.
#37 - durkadurka (06/30/2014) [-]
People fail to make the larger connection. Sure banning guns will lower shootings as sure as banning spoons will lower soup consumption. But do gun bans effectively reduce crime? Do spoons effectively reduce obesity? If they do, is the tradeoff worth it?
People will just end up using forks and eating cake, or stubbornly using sporks to eat their soup. All you've really accomplished is removing spoons.
So do gun control advocates really care about crime rates, or are they more concerned with removing guns?
#70 - tomthehippie (06/30/2014) [-]
Gun control=/=taking guns away from responsible owners.
Gun control=laws and regulations that have a PROVEN track record of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and ensuring that gun owners know what they are doing.
Gun control=background checks with every purchase, mandatory registration of guns, yearly license renewal and testing for continued ownership.
#171 - durkadurka (06/30/2014) [-]
The thread you're replying to was discussing the naivete of gun bans. I did erroneously write "gun control advocates" but it should be pretty easy to understand that I'm referring to people who wish to ban weapons outright.
Let me take a bite at this anyways:
>Gun control=laws and regulations that have a PROVEN track record of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and ensuring that gun owners know what they are doing.
This doesn't happen. Look at the places with the strictest gun laws. There you'll more crime and more criminals with guns. By definition gun regulations only affect those who actually WANT to obey the law. No gang banger is going to care how illegal his gun is.
Also, you don't need a license to exercise a right. To require so would undermine the very concept of a right.
#308 - tomthehippie (06/30/2014) [-]
Just because a place has strict gun laws does not mean it has gun control that is proven, methods such as background checks and registration of all firearms.
Hence the phrasing; "gun control laws with a proven track record"
As in, laws that have been proven to lower gun crimes. Of course, silly me, I thought I could have a factual debate with a gun nut. My mistake.
#331 - durkadurka (06/30/2014) [-]
>Not in favor of more gun control, so must be a gun nut.
Calling people names and facetiously applying derogatory labels is CLEARLY how you get people to take your points seriously. I have yet to debate a liberal who doesn't start firing off the insults almost immediately.
Your phrasing is a copout. When you add the qualifier "X that works", OF COURSE you can never be wrong. It's basically a meaningless phrase that you can apply to pretty much anything. "I only support green energy with a proven track record".
But going off of that, does this mean that you DON'T support the gun control measures in places like Detroit, Chicago, etc? Places with high crime yet stricter gun control obviously have laws in place that don't work.
And as far as background checks go, they already are a standard thing. They aren't enforced when it comes to private transactions (you could see why that would be difficult to enforce). It's not unreasonable to suggest that people should have to make sure they aren't illegally selling something, however. I also don't think it unreasonable to discuss chances to the current background check system either. Verifying that you can own a weapon isn't that different from verifying that you can vote, etc.
Registration of firearms is a bit different however. What many people don't like about this is the government's ability to store and access this information. Bad things have historically come out of that capacity. Another big issue with registration is that it can't effectively stop weapons owned illegally (for obvious reason). I understand the desire for safety, but it just isn't right to have gun owners this closely monitored by the government, especially in light of recent abuses. Besides, I think a working background check will essentially accomplish what this tries to.
But really these are just symptoms of a greater problem. You start trying to help the poor and uneducated and crime will fall.
#338 - tomthehippie (06/30/2014) [-]
>thinks background checks are standard
nope, a registered felon who is on probation or parole can go to several states, such as Arizona, that have no background checks or registration laws and purchase a gun and go back where ever they came from.
>thinks registration is a bad thing
Oh, so if another organization had a registry of every gun owner, would that be the same as Uncle Sam having that same registry? Because, guess what? The NRA already has that information. And you don't see how that could protect you? If your finger prints are on file with your gun, and someone steals your gun and uses it in a crime, then you can easily be absolved of any wrong doing with the information on file. Next, is it a bad thing that Uncle Sam has a registry of every car owner? Are you saying that lethal weapons designed to make taking a life easy should be less regulated than cars?
And I have yet to have a debate with a gun nut who doesn't take things out of context and try to put words in my mouth. Thanks for doing what every other gun nut does!
Lets count the logical fallacies so far!
1, equates gun control to gun bans
2, doesn't acknowledge that the automatic weapon ban (which is poorly termed, as it does not actually ban automatic weapons, but makes it a high felony to posses an automatic weapon with out very expensive permits) has lead to most organized crime groups eschewing automatic weapons
3, equates gun nut to insult
4, claims that phrasing a statement to explain an idea is a cop out, because it excludes regulations that haven't done what they were aimed at doing, but instead specifies that regulations that are proven to lower gun crime, but are not universally enforced through out the USA
5, claims that liberals aren't trying to help the poor, when that is the primary basis of the political platform that liberals use
6, claims that areas with strict gun control, but high rates of gun crimes, that are next to areas with laughably lose gun control=failed gun control.
#345 - durkadurka (07/01/2014) [-]
You know, I was trying to be nice and converse with someone who decided to be antagonistic right off the bat. I thought you'd appreciate a nice civil debate.
But no, it seems you cannot resist being a massive cunt. Not one of your comments are EVER pleasant, or even neutral.
Your cute little list is false and unrelated to what I've attempted to civilly discuss here. It's standard leftist tactic. Also, you use the term "gun nut" in a derisive manner, clearly intending it to be insulting. Don't play dumb, the same thing is done with "teabagger".
Being a liberal is the easiest thing you can be. It's all talk about how much you care about the poor, crime, education etc, with no actual work. All you do is whine to the government to do the work for you, and then call it a day. You don't have to lift a damn finger, yet you're rewarded with a warm feeling of self-righteousness as you pat yourself on the back for being such a great person.
No, the liberals don't actually give two shits about the poor. It's their platform sure, but if you think their platform represents what they actually DO, you're a fucking moron. The liberals care about the poor for their VOTE. That's it, nothing else. The same thing goes for gun control, environmentalism, immigration, etc. When Nancy Pelosi goes down to the border and tells the refugees that she wishes she could take them all home, do you think she ACTUALLY means that? Fuck no, she's thinking about how many of them will vote Democrat in a few years. Meanwhile it's people on the right trying to raise money and food for those suffering children.
Liberalism is about power over the people. They expand government power and then a dependent voter base to hold on to that power. Objectively it's not just the left, look at Ed Cochran's primary victory. But the worst thing is that you buy into the bullshit and actually think these people have your best interests at heart.
Go fuck yourself.
#347 - durkadurka (07/01/2014) [-]
I don't really watch Fox. Maybe once in a while, but I've long since given up on cable news (because unlike you, I'm not a mindless drone). The cute little "haha Faux looks like Fox" joke is extremely common among the mindless follows who populate the far left. You're such a drone that you can't even come up with anything that isn't a liberal talking point. Hell you're even having your insults spoon fed to you. There's not one original thought coming from you.
You're taking the easy route; You don't have to think for yourself, or actually put in any real work. This explains why liberals like yourself freak out when they actually have to debate.
When your liberal masters ask you to bend over you say "how far?" and convince yourself that having your freedoms slowly stripped for yet another pipe dream actually feels good. You serve people who care only about themselves, and you serve them on the false premise that they actually care about your well-being. For this I truly feel sorry for you. You've been duped by people who seek to take away your liberty so that they may rule.
At least these leftists don't conceal their actions. The progressives in the GOP are just as bad, if not worse than the people they claim to oppose. While they claim to support individual liberty and limited government, they really just support more power and control for themselves. It's pretty fucking bad when you can't distinguish between right and left in a Mississippian primary race.
While I'm here I might as well point out one more thing: Hippies are fucking disgusting. They contribute nothing and think they know everything. For such an ambitious people, you think they'd do more than smoke pot, play crappy music, and smell like the homeless. A hippie's opinion is fucking worthless and that explains your username. Pic related.
#348 - tomthehippie (07/01/2014) [-]
You are so deluded it isn't even funny. And using a picture of Ronald Reagan is perfect for you, he must be your hero.
Go ahead and go home and fap over your military weapons, I mean penile replacements, I mean perfectly safe and designed for civilian use semiautomatic weapons that can be converted to fully automatic in thirty minutes with some basic tools, and claim you won another debate.
I proved every point you made wrong. Deal with it.
#349 - durkadurka (07/01/2014) [-]
I own no weapons. This just further proves that you're a massive cunt and can't be bothered to see people you disagree with as people. They're just crude names to you, again a standard tactic popular with leftists.
Could it be that I have p-p-p-principles? Sorry if such a concept is foreign to you, I almost forgot that you just believe whatever makes your masters happy.
You've literally proved nothing, let alone "every point". You've done two things: Regurgitate half-baked talking points and used the insults found on page 3 of your "how to be a good little liberal" manual.
When it comes to debating, you're a monkey in a cage who shrieks and flings his shit. How is anybody supposed to converse with that? There's no winner here. Just myself and a blind fool.
Whine all you want, you're just showing the problems you're having when actually trying to think critically about your standard issue beliefs. Liberals are largely unable to debate since their view points are spoon fed and incubated in safe environments (see college). Conservative minded folk, on the other hand, are used to having their believes ridiculed on a daily basis, in nearly every form of media and entertainment. This makes one good at defending held beliefs and values.
I've only met one liberal where I knew he sincerely believed in what he said. I know you'll come up with some cute little rephrasing of this, but he was far different than you. I could see how his beliefs tied into his core values, whereas you read like a series of loosely connected DNC pamphlets and MSNBC clips.
While I'm here, let me debunk one more of your DNC talking points:
Background checks are federally mandated, hippie.
#350 - tomthehippie (07/02/2014) [-]
>conservatives have logical beliefs
so what you are saying is that laws that restrict the sex of the person you are legally allowed to marry are "small government"? GOOD LOGIC THERE!
>conservatives do what is right for the economy!
so that minimum wage hike liberals are gunning for, that hasn't been proven to be a good thing in another country? Like... umm, Australia, with a 15 dollar minimum wage, lower unemployment, lower percentage of people on public assistance?
>socialized health care is going to destroy the country!
So there isn't a country with socialized healthcare that has shown that it is a good thing? Oh, wait, Australia, and Sweden, and Norway, and Switzerland... all have socialized healthcare, all have stronger economies.... hmmm, I'm seeing a pattern here...
>mentions that background checks are federally mandated
>ignores that in gunshows in arizona there are no gunchecks and due to loopholes in the laws placed there by republicans this is perfectly legal
Yeah, so who is blinded and ignoring facts? Keep on trying. This is hilarious how blind you are. Hey, you worship the Founding Fathers, don't you?
Here's a quote that will blow your mind!
#351 - durkadurka (07/02/2014) [-]
I'm going to ignore most of this fallacy, though I do want to point out one thing:
Minimum wage laws are completely arbitrary and make no sense from an economic standpoint.
In North Dakota, low skill workers are being paid about $15/hr with no involvement from your big brother
You'll also find that wages stay low when you have a massive influx of low skill workers. Australia actually has and enforces an immigration policy, and this is why it's stupid to look at one aspect of another country and insist that we ought to be like that.
Also, yeah I'm aware that the background checks only apply to licensed dealers (ie not private sales). I hit the character limit. I still proved your original statement wrong
Holy fuck do you seriously think that Washington used the term to refer to the modern American liberal? The way the left uses "liberal" is not the proper way in which the word is actually used. Before this happened, liberal meant to be open to MORE freedom and liberty and less government oppression, as was common at the time.
In fact, this is why some, such as Milton Friedman refer to themselves as "classical liberals". It has nothing to do with your group of power-hungry thieves.
A liberal from Washington's time is more like today's libertarian than anything else.
It's ALSO important to note that other countries still use liberal (and conservative) in the proper way.
Your "gotcha" attempt with the quote is extremely helpful to me. It shows me how little you know, how you're not actually thinking, and how little you've cared to read and learn about these things. This is some pretty basic shit, and for you to not understand it is very telling.
If this were a George Orwell novel, you'd be Big Brother's wet dream. I never though I'd see doublethink outside of his work.
Keep 'em coming, this is easy.
#80 - alexusapi (06/30/2014) [-]
Exactly, like it's here in iceland, there has literally been one "shooting" in my lifetime (22), but still icelanders have a lot of fucking guns, it's a mentality thing, the gun doesn't go out and kill people, sure it makes a killers job easier but so what? he could probably mow down a whole lot of people in his SUV, i don't see a "ban SUV's" campaign.
#38 - tehfalconguy (06/30/2014) [-]
Would school shootings possibly happen less because it's harder for teenagers to get guns illegally? Maybe. Would making guns illegal decrease crime? No. It would just take away guns from honest people defending themselves, and the fact of the matter is guns prevent crimes much more than they "cause" them. Some crazy fucker isn't gonna kill people just because he has a gun. He'll do it with a knife if he can't get a gun. Restriction on weapons just makes crimes happen more, and you can look up the statistics if you don't believe me.
#40 - anonymous (06/30/2014) [-]
EXACTLY if he cant get a gun he'll just make a pipe bomb, mustard gas, molotov cocktails (all things you could piece together in a garage in a few minutes) and just kill people that way. either way, props to this guy
|#55 - I didn't cringe, it's almost as if i don't give a flying … [+] (4 new replies)||06/30/2014 on Ultra Cringe||+9|
|#3 - where can i play this game? [+] (4 new replies)||05/20/2014 on Well, That Escalated Quickly||0|
|#124 - Comment deleted||05/20/2014 on Lucky bstrd||0|
|#43 - And i'm no chemist but i'm pretty sure that's chloroacetic aci… [+] (6 new replies)||03/05/2014 on My little sisters question||0|
#46 - anonymous (03/05/2014) [-]
You always number the shorter way, it would be 2-chlorobenzoic acid, aka meta- chlorobenzoic acid
#47 - anonymous (03/05/2014) [-]
counted wrong, 3-