[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)

 No.5957[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1596044749833.jpg (86.41 KB, 600x600, 1:1, T142577329704.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Now that the creator of Harry Potter has outed herself as a terrible person, can we all finally agree that Harry Potter was never good? That you were all just easily-impressionable kids and that with the hindsight of adults the whole franchise kinda sucks? Can we make this the official stance going forward? It would really hinder J.K. Rowling's ability to say bigoted stuff AND be listened to.
184 posts and 41 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Oh yes, how terrible of Trump do have concerns about security on a Chinese app that appears to actively steal data...

Trump could start a "feed baby kittens" campaign, and people would still be against it because the orange man is bad


We have reasons to believe he's bad. We didn't just all get together and decide it one day. You not seeing them/are actively choosing to ignore and excuse them isn't our problem.

Trump has been trying to smear China since day one. People in his administration have even tried to say that they created the Corona virus with no proof. Is it possible TikTok is some sort of security risk? Sure. But I'm going to take his going after an app made in China with a grain of salt because of that history of him tirade against anything Chinese. It just looks like more of the same when he goes after a phone app for babies to share their dances on.


File: 1596660676873.png (376.3 KB, 940x720, 47:36, 1451441786792.png) ImgOps Google

>But I'm going to take his going after an app made in China with a grain of salt because of that history of him tirade against anything Chinese.
You are right to question anything that comes out of Trump's mouth.  The man is a pathological liar.   But, like a broken clock, Trump is occasionally correct.  As someone who does cybersecurity as my job, I can say that TikTok is most definitely a clusterfuck in terms of privacy and security.

(Just for clarity: I am not saying that I support Trump's idea to ban TikTok from the US.  I would certainly recommend to anyone that they refrain from installing TikTok's app or to remove it if they have already installed it.  But employing the heavy hand of government against an app involves more considerations than just its cybersecurity concerns.)

 No.6125[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1596131446549.png (177.01 KB, 640x319, 640:319, qupRvcb_d_1.png) ImgOps Google

How do you judge a person? Do you believe in sorting people into strict categories such as good and bad? When trying to understand a person's negative traits, how much leniency can we give them? How do you balance a person's good actions with their bad actions?
88 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1596266532130.jpeg (37.93 KB, 680x467, 680:467, cat-filter-canada-drawing.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Perhaps there should be more legal protection for employees against shitty behavior by their employers, especially if the employer is a large corporation run by MBAs focusing on quarterly earnings.


Not against it. Though, I imagine it's something that'd be difficult to pass for legislation.
Where would you really start?


File: 1596267749304.png (1.18 MB, 1200x900, 4:3, sleepy.png) ImgOps Google

It is a hard problem.  I think California has some employee protections for political activity.

But now my brain is shutting down its logical reasoning centers; it is time for me to head to bed and get some sleep.  Goodnight!

 No.5815[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1594181114017.png (30.97 KB, 400x244, 100:61, chomsky-freedom-of-speech.png) ImgOps Google

In the past, it was often conservatives who tried to suppress viewpoints that they disagreed with, but now it seems that the left/SJWs are the worst offenders.  What can we do to ensure a culture where people feel free to speak their opinions openly and engage in honest debate without fear of attacks (kinetic or otherwise) from angry mobs?



(mirror: http://archive.is/kQ0I3)
84 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



I mean. You can just look up the text of the bill online and skip the professional opinion-havers... it's kind of terrible? I mean. It is weirdly bipartisan, but it's also totally pointless. It's the kind of vapid feel good nonsense you usually get from the left.

Like. The bill discourages the formal training of choke holds in police academies, it discourages filing false police reports to cover up murder and constitutional violations, it suggests creating a 12 member senate sub committee to explore what it would be like if they were black, and the attorney general will talk to other attorney generals in the states to talk about how it would be neat if there was a training program or something for police that taught them policing and they will report back with their findings that police academies exist.

In the second part the bill swears to make a pamphlet summarizing their findings on what if they were black and is there training for broad distribution, and also to make it illegal for police to rape people in their custody authorizes the attorney general to offer a grant to states that discourage raping people under police custody.

... actually looking through the amendments the only things that even mention anything plausibly meaningful are amendments that Rand Paul added. There is some minor grant reform. Some additional paperwork added to civil forfeitures that looks like it was struck down since it isn't in the body of the finalized bill unlike the other amendments, but that might just be a bureaucratic thing.


My trouble is, all that could've been brought up in a debate on the bill.
Blocking even the debate doesn't address these issues. It's just cowardice.


File: 1595299111788.jpg (20.45 KB, 320x320, 1:1, Star-Vs-The-Forces-Of-Evil….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

This is my first time here.

So.... Hi! Nice to meet you!
35 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


True. But, again, there's no cause to be. No advantage to be gained.

>It was not my intention at all to be dismissive or belittling. I am literally just calling things how I see them, I don't really have the time or energy to waste on pettiness.
Fair enough. Like I said, as long as you wouldn't take offense in the example I gave you, I am not ultimately justified and expecting my standards to supercede your own, especially without you knowing mine to begin with.
That's on me.

>except that the mod doesn't insult you which is something you care enough to criticize me for.
I care that anyone does so. It doesn't matter to me if you are a moderator. I am inclined to treat you as I would any other poster.
The most you given that regard is the unfortunate tie of that particular groups' issues and histories, which I admit do influence me in regards to my presumptions.

As to whether or not I am bad at explaining things, possibly. Probably.
I blame it on being very direct and very literal.
Unfortunate reality is that most people aren't, and so this causes communication issues. Difficult to unlearn, and I'm not entirely sure I want to, as I don't see that rigidity as inherently bad.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1595468246688.png (13.62 KB, 268x310, 134:155, lola38.png) ImgOps Google

Cool, well I'm legitimately glad to clear that up. I'm sorry if I was being short with you, I have a very very long history of dealing with people who are out to pick apart fucking every innocuous thing I have to say with a mod tag on. Which, you don't even give a shit that I am a mod, that's kinda wonderful to me, haha.

I think you still are breaking the rules of the board in this thread, whether you care about that or not, but you're alright with me otherwise. Thanks for putting in the time to be understood, I don't like the feeling that I'm not hearing a person who wants to be heard.


No worries. Like I said, it's kind of on me for jumping to conclusions and all.
Whole point of language is to facilitate understanding, yet despite that it does a rather sorry job at times.
Thanks for staying on until that point was reached


File: 1591244383943.png (208.38 KB, 964x434, 482:217, pokemon-334-1463491774-7_w….png) ImgOps Google

What is an optimum diet for typical humans?

Personally, I think that the government-recommended diet is too high on carbs.  And naturally occurring saturated fats have been wrongly maligned.

Also, check my quads!
4 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Checks out for a gazelle.


File: 1593642406874.png (51.77 KB, 671x282, 671:282, what-do-hedgehogs-eat.png) ImgOps Google

>I think the optimal diet for humans is: Food.
I guess I can't argue with that.


I think OP may have something.

The US government dietary recommendations have always been very long on starch.  I am old enough to remember "four servings of breads and cereals, four servings of fruits and vegetables, three servings of dairy products, two servings of meat" from the 70s and the "Four Four Three Two" song schoolchildren of the time were encouraged to learn.  No, really.

And there are some people who can be very healthy on a diet where they get most of their calories from various forms of refined white starch, which have been the centerpiece of the Western diet for centuries if not thousands of years.  There were dietary and metabolic experiments done in the 1920s with athletes and people who did very heavy physical labor, like lumberjacks in the era before chainsaws and tractors became common, who worked brutal sixteen-hour days and did everything with axes and hatchets and then load the logs onto mule-drawn wagons to take them in for processing.  Some of those men were eating four and five thousand calories a day and using it all.  Those workers and athletes had no problems with obesity or diabetes or high blood pressure.

But in the 21st Century, most Americans don't live that kind of life.  We don't work brutal sixteen hour shifts climbing trees to lop the limbs off before we shimmy down to chop it down with an axe, then chop it into uniform lengths with an axe, then pick up the logs and carry them to a wagon and stack them up.  The men who do work in the timber industry now have all manner of tools to assist them today that didn't exist a hundred years ago and don't work those insane shifts either.

And there is something, I think, to be said for the idea that our ancestors came down from the trees three and a half million years ago, and learned to eat fruit and roots and anything they could catch and kill that was smaller than they were.  In modern terms, what I'm talking about is called "keto."  Millions of years passed and our ancestors evolved, their bodies evolving to adapt to this diet of protein and vegetable matter.  Agriculture has only existed on this planet for ten thousand years, if that.  The modern diet of mostly starch and not much of anything else is not something we've had millions of years to adapt to.  It isn't really perfectly suited to us, though there are national economies that revolve around industrial agriculture and expPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1592628872099.jpg (87.06 KB, 750x1000, 3:4, IMG_3854.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

This came across my dash today. worth a read

This is what I wore to work today. On my way to get a burrito before work, I was detained by the police.

I noticed the police car in the public lot behind Centre Street.  As I was walking away from my car, the cruiser followed me.  I walked down Centre Street and was about to cross over to the burrito place and the officer got out of the car.

"Hey my man," he said.

He unsnapped the holster of his gun.

I took my hands out of my pockets.

"Yes?"  I said.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
12 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Vigilantism very often results in mistakes. It's why it's not preferred. Better to have a system in place where, ideally anyway, you have an unbiased party judge on the matter with a proportional punishment if they are proven to be guilty.

Leaving it to vigilantism means you get cases where someone says "I bet Frank did this. The bastard was always jealous of me!".


>Vigilantism very often results in mistakes.
The court system isn't perfect, but it's a lot better at getting to the truth than people deciding to take justice into their own hands.



Is it?  Do you have statistic for that?

 No.5437[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1591077416589.jpg (45.42 KB, 817x613, 817:613, untitled.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

would have posted on /pony/ but I'm pretty sure this is a political issue.

I recently came across the following article https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/what-white-people-can-do-for-racial-justice-f2d18b0e0234
And among the 75 items it lists that white people can do to actively support anti-discrimination, it mentions starting a book club, and reading a few recommended books. I would love to try this with all of you.

I once had a friend who spoke out violently about this issue, but he hurt me to the point that we had to end our friendship. Still, the issues he faced are real, and I am glad to have found something I can do to help support his plight. I would love if you could join me in actively reading and discussing books on racial prejudice, as recommended by this article.
144 posts and 34 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Edit:  if im wrong and you arent deliberately provoking me with deliberate sophistry, then i apologize for my tone because it really feels like you are trying to piss me off on purpose with the misstatements if my words and willfully false reasoning.  Probably me tho, iunno.

Now you are strawmanning me hard.

Concluding that a perception is why they fail to invest in their own human capital directly blames them for not helping themselves.

>darwin not eugenics cuz no hitler yet

Your logic is impeccable.  NO ONE was ever a despiccable Nazi before hitler made up the name.  Not Teddy Roosevelt, not Thomas Jefferson.

Go ahead, cling to your lies that you cannot deal are false.

I especially like the way you cast me as attacking or disparaging ypu just becauas i point out your cited material is victim-shaming.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1593647529415.jpg (270.54 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, holo-1524346953193.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Now you are strawmanning me hard.
I apologize if I misrepresented your position.  But it was not intentional.  I guess I just don't fully understand what you're trying to say.

>NO ONE was ever a despiccable Nazi before hitler made up the name.  Not Teddy Roosevelt, not Thomas Jefferson.
Correct.  "Nazi" means something specific.  And Jefferson's philosophy is about as far from Naziism as possible.

>trying to avoid defending the position
What position?

>attacking me directly rather than my reasoning.
I don't think I committed any ad hominem fallacies.  Where do you think I did?

>That tactic strongly suggests that you do think its reasonable to say black people don't participate in improving themselves.  
I wouldn't say "black people don't participate in improving themselves" categorically.  Some people (both black people and white people) fail to improve themselves.


See my edit.  Im sorry.

Im really pissed off at what Jefferson REALLY said.  Its not just the bits we're told but straight eugenics.  Watch my last video, or don't.

Have a good day.


File: 1592545356205.png (58.3 KB, 693x571, 693:571, 118-1188390_my-little-pony….png) ImgOps Google

Does the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" include the power to completely prohibit non-commercial growth and possession of marijuana for personal consumption?  Was Gonzales v. Raich (2005) wrongly decided?
6 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


The high court has too many stakes in the things that would come unhinged if the overapplication of the commerce clause was seriously challenged.

No one in Congress would confirm your appointment, you homewrecker.


File: 1593301108218.jpg (215.99 KB, 660x720, 11:12, 1473274354227.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>The high court has too many stakes in the things that would come unhinged if the overapplication of the commerce clause was seriously challenged.
The Supreme Court already struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 as exceeding Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.  And Gonzales v. Raich wasn't a unanimous opinion; 3 justices dissented.  I say it's high time for the Supreme Court to get back in the business of actually enforcing the full Bill of Rights, including the 10th Amendment.  If they're too worried that chaos might result if they invalidate most of the unconstitutional federal laws, maybe they can compromise and just allow states to specifically override federal encroachments of intra-state commerce.


> back in the business of actually enforcing the full Bill of Rights,

See, this shows me that you have as much to unlearn as i do.  You do, i hope, realize that the high court was never about enforcing the bill of rights?  That the people's rights at all were only an illusion, and that what we have right now is actually as close as we've ever been to the country we imagine was once actually real but has somehow been lost?

Its like slavery ending on schedule, which it didnt, example Plessy.  Many decades following the high court AT LAST following the bill of right in Brown v Bd of Education, and we still have segregated schools and effective slavery of the vast majority of our disenfranchised black population.

Im just sayin.


File: 1591834578412.png (524.9 KB, 745x1024, 745:1024, aaf.png) ImgOps Google

By changing the laws and sentencing, changing how much the state scrutinizes citizens, and changing how the state uses discretion, the state can basically set the proportion of citizens that will end up in prison.

Authorities use force to make subjects more moral than they could be as individuals.  It might follow that the more force used -- in this case, the more subjects put in correctional control, the more moral a society, the logical end being a totalitarian state where the whole nation is basically a prison.

On the other hand, I think when people say "Law and Order," they assume some will not need punishment.  You could even imagine a perfect state of law and order where police do nothing, citizens obey out of self-discipline, or obedience is common because the laws are tolerant of diverse behaviors.  You could disband police.  You could dissolve authoritarian power.

Something keeps things between these extremes for the most part.  How is it decided how much enforcement is best?
12 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1592181451061.jpg (251.71 KB, 1000x1291, 1000:1291, flag_rainbow.JPG) ImgOps Exif Google

>It is in [individual's] hands as much as it would be in any single person's hand.  Government is a tool as any other tool. It is not guaranteed to create what is desired on its own.
I have to think on this a bit more.  If an individual is sent to prison, and they feel it is not justice, they may say they are being treated unfairly.  But they are still in prison, and most people will say, "Do the crime, do the time!" or such.  But maybe you do get group agreement with the prison sentence being unfair -- some saintly grandma serving 30 years in prison because kids were found smoking pot in her yard.  Social media is full of denouncements.  Opinions pieces in major newspapers say it is unjust.  And finally, the sentence is overturned, maybe the law changed.

You can say there's some platonic principle of justice that the state is being held accountable to, I do think there's some truth to that.  On the other hand, the state is still the one that decides to overturn the sentence and change the law.  Unless it's going to be anarchy, the state still holds authority.  But there are meta-forces that restrict the state, I'll agree to that.


File: 1592197651293.jpg (64.58 KB, 800x533, 800:533, precinct-burn.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>On the other hand, the state is still the one that decides to overturn the sentence and change the law.
Or the citizens tell the police to go to hell and burn down their precinct building.  


File: 1592269304028.jpeg (201.04 KB, 1184x1024, 37:32, ana.jpeg) ImgOps Google

We can't deny that states can decay into anarchy.  The situation for people living through that is generally not so good, but you could argue it's the forces that caused the state to decay that made conditions bad, rather than the dissolution of state authority itself.  I can observe most in modern times (really most all talked about in recorded history) do not live under anarchy.

Some of the problem is entropy.  When I think of happy anarchy, I think of an equality that comes from no one acting as an authority over me -- no police offer forcing me to do what I don't think is appropriate because they have a gun, for example.  The problem becomes that there are many more kinds of inequality than equality, and even worse inequality tends to feed on itself.  So (happy) anarchy is a kind of razor edge.


File: 1591772432014.png (354.95 KB, 400x612, 100:153, Groovy Shy.png) ImgOps Google

...i've been thinking about some of the literature i've had the time to study, as of late.

i want to present to you, a quote:

"Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. IF you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, he that is not with me is against me."

...sounds hawkish, yes? Maybe the words of a warmonger? An American general? And yet, these are the words of none other than George Orwell - yes, that George Orwell - in the context of the British debate over pacifistic appeasement with the Nazis, prior to the outbreak of World War II.

When you look at the quote, at its face value, it is objectively true.

And that rankles me. i am someone who really, really believes in peace.

And yet, have i not found myself in conflict, when i have felt the rights of those i care about are injured? Have i not found myself the rebel, here on the internet, and in real life, despite my preference for peace and quiet?

i speak not only of the present times, though surely this quote is as applicable today as it ever has been.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
1 post and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1591793733789.jpeg (958.98 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, gg.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Not sure what to say.  When Britain is in a position to choose whether to fight Hitler or let him be, each choice has meaning.

I think pro-fascist is a bit hyperbole -- Britain wouldn't imagine providing aid to Hitler's state.  But how to regard inaction might depend on how much you agree with "the only thing necessary for evil to thrive is for good to do nothing."  If this is so, good must fight.  

Although one would have to explain how the system of good and evil works, that pacifism favors evil over good.


File: 1591805639478.png (157.54 KB, 435x360, 29:24, you are a wonderful pony.png) ImgOps Google

there is wisdom in both of your words. i will post the full document here, but i think i have learned from each of you what i came here to seek (thank you)



Honestly I disagree. As a leftist and anti-fascist, though I may find pacifism contemptible in terrible situations I think there are at least situations where it's quite understandable and they shouldn't be held as though they are themselves basically fascist at least when it comes down to a person level, maybe not a country level. Cowardly may be a fair accusation, but not pro-fascist imo. When applied to a country, it's more understandable the US could have done a lot more good if they intervened sooner but it also wasn't necessarily the US's fight until later on and declaring war also means dragging DRAFTED people into a war which is a big fucking deal imo. Now, I do think things would be better if they intervened sooner as I said, hell, I found this story about some americans who went to fight against the fascists in spain on their own and I do think if more people trained for situations like this and followed their example it may have ended up better: https://theintercept.com/2017/09/30/the-americans-who-fought-fascism-before-wwii/

But back to people since I see this argument applied to regular people as well: I do believe they SHOULD do something if they can, but in many situations there will almost certainly be serious consequences for it, and not just for themselves but it can also have serious ramifications for the family and friends they leave behind to act. If that makes me go against "elementary common sense", so be it I guess.


File: 1591312709219.jpeg (170.23 KB, 724x1024, 181:256, aaa.jpeg) ImgOps Google

I didn't think this was controversial, but I've found on Facebook, it is.  I'm not a lawyer, so I can't really talk with authority, so I'll ask here:

1) Is it legal to choose to run over protesters with a motorized vehicle if they are in your way?

2) If it is legal, is it in the public interest?  (Obviously crime will not be in the public interest, so you have no need to argue in that case.)

I'm talking about generic protesters, if you want to talk about a protester threatening a driver's life, I'll ask you to argue that this is the expectation for a generic protester.

(If you want to share for countries other than USA, that's fine, too.)
36 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Some are showing up. Roof koreans are becoming a thing again. It's just, due to rioters attacking innocent people's property instead of the system that wronged them, they're usually taking a stance against what is an immediate threat to them.

There are also some with the more peaceful protests, though, as I understand it.



File: 1591421143487.png (219.82 KB, 872x886, 436:443, 1521150653563.png) ImgOps Google

>Even if that's true (I've seen no proof of this) this is EXACTLY the fantasy scenario they have been saying they need their guns for. If the government turned it's own military against civilians. But where are they? Why aren't they out there defending these people with their second amendment rights like they always said they would.

1. It's uncertain whether a majority of the protesters would even want this sort of armed defense by Second Amendment enthusiasts.

2. People generally don't go out and be free armed security for other groups.  People use their weapons to defend themselves and the groups that they are part of.

3. Probably some of the protesters were armed and ready, but fortunately didn't have to kill any misbehaving police officers.

4. Have you even read The Art of War by Sun Tzu?  It is foolish to do a full frontal assault against a superior enemy.  If you want a picture of how a rebellion against the US government would play out, look at how insurgents in the Middle East have resisted the US military there.


Honestly, given the numbers involved, a full frontal assault would probably work.
But that'd require a lot of citizens to actually pull it off. And, that's not something anyone's going to want to do with people they don't like, disagree with, or wouldn't trust in power.


File: 1591159068952.jpg (55.62 KB, 760x427, 760:427, policeraid.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Should it illegal for police to conduct no-knock raids and night-time raids?

I think such raids should be limited to cases where the police would be justified in using deadly force on the basis of the underlying crime being investigated (e.g., kidnapping, military espionage, etc.).  And given that police have fucked up on multiple occasions and raided the wrong house, no-knock raids should be illegal unless there is clear and convincing evidence that knocking will fairly directly lead to physical injury to innocent persons.

2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



Wouldn't that make it especially dangerous for the kidnapped?


With exceptions to when they pose an immediate threat to others, yes, absolutely.

There should be no no-knock raids for drugs or such nonsense


File: 1591361581479.jpg (393.52 KB, 1280x934, 640:467, aadf.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Hmm...the book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness is talking about these SWAT raids.  It sounds like most drug related search warrants need to be conducted in this fashion.  Collateral damage (property destruction, deaths, emotional or physical trauma) does not seem an uncommon outcome.

>Should it illegal for police to conduct no-knock raids and night-time raids?

If the collateral damage were greater than the benefit to society of locking up drug offenders (that couldn't be discovered without a SWAT raid) or if the collateral damage were simply intolerable no matter the benefit, you could say that.  Although I'm becoming confused about the relationship between legality and police action.

 No.5308[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1590831213171.jpg (17.09 KB, 326x287, 326:287, 1563467981513.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

You can discuss what you want in this thread, but the main purpose of this thread is for support and love, because what's going on right now is awful.

I don't want to put it on /pony/ because I know it will turn political, so please just keep the main purpose of the thread in mind while you post here.

One of my online friends had to evacuate their home. They live in Minneapolis. In the state next to my own, in a town I have actually drove through a few times, there are riots. In big cities in my own states, there are riots and vandalizing.

This sucks.
201 posts and 33 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>And it bugs me greatly that 90% of this thread has been about debating ...
>with very little posting about showing some support...
I guess I just don't see how you could fill 200+ posts with just showing support.  So naturally, debate will predominate, because people have more to say on that topic.  Or maybe I don't understand what you mean by "showing support".


Im sorry, I'm still trying to rein in my emotions, but does it have to be a 200+ post thread?

I don't know. I'll think about putting the thread on pony, but I'm very hesitant.


Posting in an historical thread.

 No.4991[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1590018461969.png (256.62 KB, 880x1024, 55:64, gun.png) ImgOps Google

There's sorta a gun debate going in another thread, but not something I feel is appropriate for me to join as it started somewhere else.

In America, there seem to be two main groups, one favoring gun control -- bringing down the number of guns, basically; one that believes the greater quantity and quality of weapons per citizen -- especially per well trained, law-abiding citizen -- the better the society.  And I think most of us have seen sparks fly as the groups head off.

A question that comes to my mind: are there shared values between these two groups (values related to weapons and the debate, for those who like things spelled out)?  I know, for example, reducing gun deaths is not a shared value -- some deaths are seen as justified and many would say reducing gun deaths (by bad people) simply means an increase in death by other means.  So that's not the metric.  Is there one?
283 posts and 57 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Zimmerman's race is disputed. Again, it is uncivil to keep accusing me of racism when I have not done so to you.

You're only framing it as "freedom" because it benefits your narrative. We aren't allowed to buy plutonium, but somehow that isn't infringing on your "freedom".

The fact you dont' afford Martin the same benefit of the doubt is troubling, but I think the issue is here. You say

>His life still has value.

But this person says

>"His life has lesser value than that person he attacked".
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1590801434687.gif (1023.29 KB, 227x240, 227:240, 1425106784199.gif) ImgOps Google

>The fact you dont' afford Martin the same benefit of the doubt is troubling,
I'm not sure what that is in reference to?

>For those that always value life, a gun has no value.
Huh?  That's not true at all!  Lots of people enjoy shooting paper targets and soda bottles at the range!  And not all lives have equal value.  Most people would agree that the life of a deer is worth less than the life of a human.  And if you eat meat, then you're in no moral position to condemn hunting.  And if a violent home invader is about to kill or rape your children, then obviously you should protect your family even if you need to kill the home invader.

>For those who believe that life can be devalued, then as soon as they do an action that devalues their life, the best course of action is to end that less-valuable life.
Nani???  That doesn't make any sense at all!  My stock portfolio lost a lot of value this year -- but did I end my portfolio as soon as it became devalued?  No!

>We hold completely opposite values on life itself.
I'm not so sure about that.  We might differ mainly in what system of ethics we follow (e.g., consequentialism, deontology, etc.) and its details rather than in axiology.


While his race is disputed, he's most certainly not black.

>You're only framing it as "freedom" because it benefits your narrative. We aren't allowed to buy plutonium, but somehow that isn't infringing on your "freedom".
So long as you are able to store it safely without risk to those around you, I think you ought to be.
You can buy uranium ore, and similar samples as I recall.

But, yeah, I would consider that an infringement, if I'm not hurting anyone with it.

>. For some people, life ALWAYS has value. No matter what a person has done.
Most people are not pacifists. For good reason. Pacifism is an inherently flawed ideology.

>For those that always value life, a gun has no value.
I'd still have my firearms regardless of my value in life, as the mechanics of them are interesting, and the shooting of them is fun. So, I don't really buy that.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1571795490065.png (318.04 KB, 720x720, 1:1, Concerned Celestia.png) ImgOps Google

Good evening ponies. Unfortunately, our testing period for Plan A has not yielded the result the staff was expecting.

As such, we are moving forward with Plan B, and issuing bans to a small pool of users who have been found to be particularly uncivil in their conduct on the board.

We will start with just a few bans, and escalate as needs must. Thank you for your understanding. I'm sorry it has come to this measure.

I truly hope this can help to resolve some of the civility issues and reports present on /townhall/.


Moved to >>>/arch/4337.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]