Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A jeu d’esprit – politicalbetting.com

12346»

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    Dura_Ace said:



    Change has to come from within, Americans need to grow a backbone and act

    The US has a more vibrant and recent history of resisting tyranny than the UK. The guns are there for use against the government. The British have just meekly ceded a monopoly on violence to the state.

    Orgreave could not have happened in Kentucky.
    Waco, for example, suggests you’re wrong.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited May 2022

    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    Change has to come from within, Americans need to grow a backbone and act

    The US has a more vibrant and recent history of resisting tyranny than the UK. The guns are there for use against the government. The British have just meekly ceded a monopoly on violence to the state.

    Orgreave could not have happened in Kentucky.
    The principles of gun ownership are complex. Around the turn of the 19th/20th century gun ownership in the UK was widespread, and probably not dissimilar to the US. There was a famous case around the time where an unarmed policeman borrowed a revolver from a gentleman passer by to tackle an armed gang in London. There is no doubt that authoritarians dislike the idea of an armed populace for obvious reason. It is difficult for many urban Brits to understand this aspect of US culture.

    High gun ownership does not necessarily lead to higher murder rates, but high gun ownership combined with other malaise in modern society might (desensitisation due to gaming and movies perhaps?). For those of us that have been brought up with the idea of responsible gun ownership the idea of even pointing a gun in the direction of another (unless on a military exercise) is an anathema. Simplistic solutions are rarely to answer to complex problems.
    Odd then that you threw in two bullshit simplistic explanations around gaming and movies.

    Its nonsense. Not only do they have those in, say, Switzerland, movie and videogame violence is in almost all cases not realistic, it's more a pastiche. People can tell the difference, it's why we might thrill to go see the next Tarantino splatterfest but a 2 minute report on the Ukrainian war which might show a dead body for 2 seconds will contain a warning.

    What desensitizes people is experience of actual violence. Colourful depictions of fake violence do not.
    You have absolutely no evidence for that final assertion. And I have no evidence to the contrary. But the surmise that today's gamers spending hours in an immersive 3D world where they shoot people with assault weapons with great detail and realism might desensitise them to gun violence or even encourage gun violence is hardly a far fetched one. Mortal Kombat and its splatters of 2D blood back in 1991 it aint.
    It is no more realistic in almost all instances. It looks more convincing but it's still in a Hollywood way, loud, exciting and unreal. Thats why real violence needs warnings, because it's still different.

    But no neither of us is presenting detailed studies on the subject (though that people the world over see violent media and dont have American gun violence even when they have guns is I'd say good circumstantial stuff. Also the fact people did claim mortal kombat was that bad at the time and now you seem to think it is not shows the argument was wrong then and I'd argue is now).

    In which case I am equally able to dismiss what I see as a bulkshit argument as someone is to make it, it's not competing academic journals. The original post cited no evidence either did you jump on that? Curious, I guess we aren't allowed to make assertions strongly for some reason?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,779

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Heathener said:

    Find a group who are small and cannot answer back. Poke fun at them and say they're a danger.
    Tell that to the women who have been hounded from their jobs or physically attacked.

    https://reduxx.info/uk-woman-assaulted-by-trans-activists-at-feminist-event/
    Vanishingly rare examples and laws should not be built around aberrations or those who abuse the system.

    The culture wars on this topic are revolting.

    The vast majority of trans people, whether that's male to female, female to male, or varieties of non-binary are peaceful.

    Live and let live. And the rest of us get on with our lives.
    That's exactly what laws should be built around, surely. Fred West and Jimmy Savile were pretty unusual people.

    I have never encountered anyone who was genuinely anti-trans. Perhaps some US Christians are because it's a perversion of God's handiwork? What we usually get is right on numpties who leap on any suggestion that safeguards are needed for fakers and edge cases with cries of "he said Jehovah! He said jehovah!"
    I have encountered people who are genuinely anti-trans. They were working with people who were trans.

    Awks.

    But that's probably because most people rarely meet a trans person (or realise they've met one...) for such feelings to out.

    "Safeguards are needed."

    Gay men have raped other men in toilets. Where are the safeguard for that? None are needed, because a) it would trample on the rights of the massive majority of gay men who do not behave in such an awful manner, b) it is thankfully rare, and c) because it is unenforceable.

    And before anyone says it does not happen:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-61386625
    https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/man-raped-toilets-barking-station-17902126
    etc, etc.
    A truly and utterly imbecilic point. Do you think banning alcohol sales to under 18s is pointless and ineffective because adults drink irresponsibly too? Or we shouldn't restrict gun sales because knives and hammers are available as murder weapons? We should have no criminal records checks on wannabe scoutmasters because the massive majority of them are entirely praiseworthy individuals? Or that a ban on people with dicks in ladies loos is in some way unenforceable?
    It really isn't imbecilic.

    Let's take your last line. How do you 'enforce' people with dicks not going into ladies' loos? How do you check? Does someone stand outside checking people when they go in? Does Mrs J have to 'prove' she's a woman before she enters the hallowed sanctum?

    How do you enforce it?

    If someone commits abuse, prosecute them. Have an environment where victims can come forward and their claims will be investigated (we often fall at this fence).

    And people transitioning need to live as their new 'gender' for two years. If you're MtoF, that involves dressing and living as a woman for two years. And yes, using women's loos.
    Persons transitioning could use disabled facilities, which are gender neutral and admit one person.
    An increasing number of bathrooms here in the US are 100% stalls and unisex, which seems to eliminate the problem altogether.

    (Although it can result in men waiting longer to pee.)
This discussion has been closed.