Please stay on the line, your call is important to us.B1rd wrote:
Aurani, since this forum won't be existing much longer, I'd like to say that your entire online personality just seems contrived and fake, and I've never sensed any actual sincerity in anything you've actually said.
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
56,155
I'm sorry I'm triggering you by talking shit about your country, but I'm not going to budge from a firm belief that you can't disprove.I can't disprove that some parts of the US are shitholes because they are, I never denied that. What you said is that the entirety of the US is a shithole. Wouldn't you be kinda salty too if I said the entirety of your country is a shithole even though you knew it's not true? I'll just drop this link real quick
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/11/america ... -2017.html
A lot of these states happen to be "tradionalist" states, and the quality of life is high while crime is relatively low. Can you call such states shitholes since they seem to fit your criteria?
I mean it's sad enough that every single stereotype about murrica is true, so why even try to defend it?By that logic, that means the GOOD stereotypes are also true, so why would that be sad? :\
If you want me to be a Eurofag, I'll be a Eurofag. Europe > MurricaDid Muhammed rape you into saying that? Haha!
As for the yellows and negros, well, of course you're going to skip the fact that I said white as well. Apparently I can say white, but not yellow or negro. What is this, tumblr? Begone.Because saying white is as racist as saying yellow and negro, right? Just drop the act. If you wanted to say actual racist slurs, you could have just said cracker. You could have just said "black" as well, but it HAD to be negro. Real classy.
As for traditionalism - it depends what you see as such. If you go by the actual definition of it, then no, it's not dead. It's just some twisted and adjusted form of it that turned into what you can call the society you have over there.Is it possible to be more vague than this? Begone.
First quote: I was making a point that murrica is a *CULTURALLY* shit place - not that it has bad standards of living or that it offers no attractions. Being a melting pot of cultures makes for a weird amalgam that I would rather stay out of. That's my opinion on it, and I'd rather raise my child in almost any country in Europe than over there. I mean it's enough to say that I'd rather let my child grow up in Israel where rockets hit every now and then than constantly wonder if the kid is gonna get mowed down by some mentally ill person with enough of an arsenal to conquer some Middle Eastern country.
As for Muhammed raping me - real classy indeed. Try being more mature if you want to give me shit for responding to your childishness in a childish manner.
As for the negros - I always say negro, even around people of that colour, and none of them have ever said anything against that, because I never meant it in a racist way. The only people to EVER get triggered by such things are those who spend too much time on certain pages on the Internet. I neither meant to be racist by saying negro nor yellow. If I wanted to be racist I would've said chingchong and nigger, or thief - whichever you prefer. If you're trying to be the sjw Internet police, you can sod off. I'm not into that sort of shit.
As for Muhammed raping me - real classy indeed. Try being more mature if you want to give me shit for responding to your childishness in a childish manner.
As for the negros - I always say negro, even around people of that colour, and none of them have ever said anything against that, because I never meant it in a racist way. The only people to EVER get triggered by such things are those who spend too much time on certain pages on the Internet. I neither meant to be racist by saying negro nor yellow. If I wanted to be racist I would've said chingchong and nigger, or thief - whichever you prefer. If you're trying to be the sjw Internet police, you can sod off. I'm not into that sort of shit.
Since when did "negro" become un-PC?
Both America and Europe have culture, albeit different sorts of culture. European countries have thousands of years of history, their own languages, cuisine etc, America has a legacy of fighting against the British Empire and forging a new country. Though I really love classical European food and music, but I'd have to say I prefer to live in America, it's the embodiment of the European classical Liberal tradition, which didn't really succeed in overturning the established powers of Europe, but found fertile ground in America when the founding fathers essentially founded a country on those ideals with the constitution. Though the American establishments have been corrupted a significant deal, I think the original culture of freedom is still fairly alive.
Not that I've been to America of course. Though if you're gonna berate a country for not having culture, then Australia is probably the worst in that regard. We didn't even have a war or anything, just sort of got our independence in an undramatic fashion.
Not that I've been to America of course. Though if you're gonna berate a country for not having culture, then Australia is probably the worst in that regard. We didn't even have a war or anything, just sort of got our independence in an undramatic fashion.
B1rd wrote:
We didn't even have a war or anything
...In connection with the Emu question I have this to say: it is a shameful
spectacle to see how the whole democratic world is oozing sympathy for the
poor tormented Emus, but remains hard-hearted and obdurate when
it comes to helping them which is surely, in view of its attitude, an obvious
duty. The arguments that are brought up as an excuse for not helping them
actually speak for us Australians and Aboriginals.
For this is what they say:
1. "We," that is the democracies, "are not in a position to take in the Emus."
Yet in these empires there are not 10 people to the square kilometer. While
Australia, with her 135 inhabitants to the square kilometer, is supposed to
have room for them!
spectacle to see how the whole democratic world is oozing sympathy for the
poor tormented Emus, but remains hard-hearted and obdurate when
it comes to helping them which is surely, in view of its attitude, an obvious
duty. The arguments that are brought up as an excuse for not helping them
actually speak for us Australians and Aboriginals.
For this is what they say:
1. "We," that is the democracies, "are not in a position to take in the Emus."
Yet in these empires there are not 10 people to the square kilometer. While
Australia, with her 135 inhabitants to the square kilometer, is supposed to
have room for them!
I mean, you have half of that equation correct but I find it unlikely that you'll figure out the second half in our lifetimeB1rd wrote:
Aurani, since this forum won't be existing much longer, I'd like to say that your entire online personality just seems contrived and fake, and I've never sensed any actual sincerity in anything you've actually said.
no need to feel bad, it took me a long time as well
also
I mean you're free to say your opinion, but I just don't understand why someone would say that to someone else apart from it being a poor attempt at trying to get them pissed? "Listen, you are FAKE news, I know it because I know you better than you could ever know yourself!"
y'all dumb thots, stop being mongrels towards my baby serbian angel.
fuckin wild ass kids
too bad your qt bby angle can be quite annoying at times!Milkshake wrote:
y'all dumb thots, stop being mongrels towards my baby serbian angel.
Love you, Aurani <3
Milkshake wrote:
BABY ANGLE
Thanks! It's doing great in school too, I'm glad it's not obtuse.
Well I'll admit I overdid it by claiming the ENTIRETY of it was shit. Some places and people there genuinely make me want to visit it, and when I say visit it, I mean *actually stay there for quite a while*. Yes, most crowded places there are filled with the same people I mentioned in the argument we had, but the rural places as well as some towns are absolutely filled with nothing but beauty and niceness. I'll try not to be more reasonable, but it's definitely not some kind of act or fake personality or whatever Bird was on about.Foxtrot wrote:
too bad your qt bby angle can be quite annoying at times!
Love you, Aurani <3
<3
History lesson for B1rd and anyone else who admires the Nazis.
I'm only one minute into the video and already there's bullshit there. The fuck do the Jews have to do with American gun control? He's taking ONE incident in modern history and uses it for his own argument. I'm VERY interested in hearing what he has to say because this is actually just laughable.
"How many Jews would've been put in ovens if they had guns" - that's not how it fucking works lmao
No civilian, no matter how deranged, would've shot someone who told them that they need to come with them because they're under investigation or another specified reason, and by the time the Jews DID know where they were going (aka going to be murdered) they were facing actual soldiers so yeah, good luck giving a random civilian a gun and telling them to shoot 5 fully equipped soldiers with professional training. Even if we make the assumption that they COULD shoot and possibly get rid of their captors, we're talking about a 1 in a thousand case, and even THEN, where is that person going to go? You have to remember, they kinda LIVED IN GERMANY. You couldn't have left Germany without a reason by the time they started mass-killing the Jews. The Jews who did run away, ran away before that started happening, but after they started mistreating them.
tl;dr Most of them didn't see such a thing coming, and even if they did, they would've been powerless to stop it, because owning a gun has shitall to do with being taken prisoner and burned in an oven in a concentration camp.
Now let's see what the vid has to offer
"How many Jews would've been put in ovens if they had guns" - that's not how it fucking works lmao
No civilian, no matter how deranged, would've shot someone who told them that they need to come with them because they're under investigation or another specified reason, and by the time the Jews DID know where they were going (aka going to be murdered) they were facing actual soldiers so yeah, good luck giving a random civilian a gun and telling them to shoot 5 fully equipped soldiers with professional training. Even if we make the assumption that they COULD shoot and possibly get rid of their captors, we're talking about a 1 in a thousand case, and even THEN, where is that person going to go? You have to remember, they kinda LIVED IN GERMANY. You couldn't have left Germany without a reason by the time they started mass-killing the Jews. The Jews who did run away, ran away before that started happening, but after they started mistreating them.
tl;dr Most of them didn't see such a thing coming, and even if they did, they would've been powerless to stop it, because owning a gun has shitall to do with being taken prisoner and burned in an oven in a concentration camp.
Now let's see what the vid has to offer
Yeah, it's incredibly sad to see people pushing that argument. They're either completely ignorant as to the historical context of the Jews in Germany at the time, or they're being deliberately disingenuous to pander to people who politically already agree with them and see no need to check the factual accuracy of what they're hearing.
I'm going to assume the latter, because people like Ben Shapiro pull this shit so often that it all being accidental ignorance just seems ridiculous. You can Google this stuff in five seconds.
I'm going to assume the latter, because people like Ben Shapiro pull this shit so often that it all being accidental ignorance just seems ridiculous. You can Google this stuff in five seconds.
So basically, Ben Carson said something wrong? That's an awfully roundabout of saying it.
I agree with Ben Shapiro; even if the Jews didn't have a chance of defeating the Third Reich, self defence is still a right and moral good, even if you die in the process. Much better than dying like sheep.
I agree with Ben Shapiro; even if the Jews didn't have a chance of defeating the Third Reich, self defence is still a right and moral good, even if you die in the process. Much better than dying like sheep.
Awfully convenient though to suddenly shift the subject to guns.
Yeah okay this guy is actually supporting my point and isn't against it.
In my opinion, I don't have anything against owning guns, but under SERIOUSLY HEAVY regulations, or if not heavy, just extremely annoying to deal with.
I would love to use Serbia as an example of that, where you actually need to go through fifty thousand loops, sign a shitton of documents, join a shooting range and go through actual training, get 3 licences and pass a psycho test to get a gun (and no random stores to buy military-grade guns either, those have to be bought with yet more paper signing and other shit).
I would love to use Serbia as an example of that, where you actually need to go through fifty thousand loops, sign a shitton of documents, join a shooting range and go through actual training, get 3 licences and pass a psycho test to get a gun (and no random stores to buy military-grade guns either, those have to be bought with yet more paper signing and other shit).
Sounds good to me, too. I'm pretty libertarian to some extent; I think freedom should be a decent priority. I don't see why Americans seem to think that freedom to buy and use guns should extent to any fucking lunatic though; restrictions that try to ensure that they're in the hands of good people are just common sense, from my perspective.Aurani wrote:
In my opinion, I don't have anything against owning guns, but under SERIOUSLY HEAVY regulations, or if not heavy, just extremely annoying to deal with.
I would love to use Serbia as an example of that, where you actually need to go through fifty thousand loops, sign a shitton of documents, join a shooting range and go through actual training, get 3 licences and pass a psycho test to get a gun (and no random stores to buy military-grade guns either, those have to be bought with yet more paper signing and other shit).
America's violence problem isn't due to lack of gun restrictions, It's due to a multitude of factors, like the drug war, gang and ethnic violence as I've pointed out before. The mantra of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" applies because there are heaps of countries with high gun ownership that don't have the problems America does.
Serbia actually has one of the highest rates of firearm ownership in the world, and has a lower homicide rate than many other European nations.
Serbia actually has one of the highest rates of firearm ownership in the world, and has a lower homicide rate than many other European nations.
B1rd wrote:
It's due to a multitude of factors, like
...lack of gun restrictions?
Why are you arguing with a strawman, B1rd? I don't think I've seen anyone- EVER- argue that gun violence is solely caused by a lack of gun restrictions. Think before you start rattling off propaganda talking points for once, would you.
That's why you create restriction to filter out people like these from having guns. Drug addict? No gun for you. Engaged in ethnic violence? No gun for you. Part of a gang? No gun for you. And so on.B1rd wrote:
America's violence problem isn't due to lack of gun restrictions, It's due to a multitude of factors, like the drug war, gang and ethnic violence as I've pointed out before
Are you using the new forum? Traitor.
Did you spontaneously drop 20 IQ points? Because that's a really bad interpretation of my post. Violence doesn't originate in guns, it originates in people. And you see this in my point about all the countries that have loose gun restrictions but have low homicide. As I've pointed out, gun availability has little effect on homicide rates, and you're a lot better off targeting the root causes rather than going on a crusade to violate people's rights. Since gun control has never proven effective at lowering violence. Like in Australia, where the gun buyback did pretty much nothing (except for spiking up the burglary rate by a fuckton), and New Zealand which didn't institute the same measures has the same decline in homicide that was already happening before the gun restriction.
Did you spontaneously drop 20 IQ points? Because that's a really bad interpretation of my post. Violence doesn't originate in guns, it originates in people. And you see this in my point about all the countries that have loose gun restrictions but have low homicide. As I've pointed out, gun availability has little effect on homicide rates, and you're a lot better off targeting the root causes rather than going on a crusade to violate people's rights. Since gun control has never proven effective at lowering violence. Like in Australia, where the gun buyback did pretty much nothing (except for spiking up the burglary rate by a fuckton), and New Zealand which didn't institute the same measures has the same decline in homicide that was already happening before the gun restriction.
I don't have a problem with restricting firearms from irresponsible people, problem is it's a really bad idea to give that decision making power of who is "responsible" to the state. I'd rather than responsibility be upon the community and firearm distributors. Although in current society it's basically illegal to deny service to anyone so there's your problem.abraker wrote:
That's why you create restriction to filter out people like these from having guns. Drug addict? No gun for you. Engaged in ethnic violence? No gun for you. Part of a gang? No gun for you. And so on.
I switch to the new forum to edit posts and then switch back, lol.
The point of my response is that lack of restrictions on guns is ONE of the contributing factors to America's problem with gun violence. You can't just hand-wave it away while listing off other loosely-connected factors; you're revealing a bias when you do so.
The gun restrictions newly put into place in Australia were followed by a sharp drop in gun violence, but it's unclear as to what extent those restrictions and buybacks were responsible for changing crime rates, since non-gun-related violence also dropped (by an even larger extent, apparently). I won't rule out there being absolutely no correlation though: in America, gun ownership and gun homicide rates are very closely related, with each 1% of gun ownership accounting for 0.9% of gun homicides. (source: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/ab ... 013.301409 )
Why would firearm distributors limit sales? They're private companies, they'll sell to anyone who wants to pay them. That's why we have state regulations in the first place, lol. Profit-driven isn't necessarily best for members of society, although somehow I doubt you'll agree there, considering how much pro-free market propaganda you seem to have swallowed...
The point of my response is that lack of restrictions on guns is ONE of the contributing factors to America's problem with gun violence. You can't just hand-wave it away while listing off other loosely-connected factors; you're revealing a bias when you do so.
The gun restrictions newly put into place in Australia were followed by a sharp drop in gun violence, but it's unclear as to what extent those restrictions and buybacks were responsible for changing crime rates, since non-gun-related violence also dropped (by an even larger extent, apparently). I won't rule out there being absolutely no correlation though: in America, gun ownership and gun homicide rates are very closely related, with each 1% of gun ownership accounting for 0.9% of gun homicides. (source: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/ab ... 013.301409 )
Why would firearm distributors limit sales? They're private companies, they'll sell to anyone who wants to pay them. That's why we have state regulations in the first place, lol. Profit-driven isn't necessarily best for members of society, although somehow I doubt you'll agree there, considering how much pro-free market propaganda you seem to have swallowed...
Firearm distributors cam deny someone service, can they? I know they may get a bed rep from it, but I am not aware of any law making it illegal.B1rd wrote:
I'd rather than responsibility be upon the community and firearm distributors. Although in current society it's basically illegal to deny service to anyone so there's your problem.
That's not true. Firstly, gun-related violence is irrelevant, total homicide is what matters. Secondly, non-gun homicide did actually increase, or rather, it didn't decrease in line with overall homicide. Knife murder barely decreased at all, being 110 a year in 1997, being 86 now. Hands/feet and "other" homicide spiked somewhat after the 1996 buyback, gradually decreasing from then on. http://www.crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I switch to the new forum to edit posts and then switch back, lol.
The point of my response is that lack of restrictions on guns is ONE of the contributing factors to America's problem with gun violence. You can't just hand-wave it away while listing off other loosely-connected factors; you're revealing a bias when you do so.
The gun restrictions newly put into place in Australia were followed by a sharp drop in gun violence, but it's unclear as to what extent those restrictions and buybacks were responsible for changing crime rates, since non-gun-related violence also dropped (by an even larger extent, apparently). I won't rule out there being absolutely no correlation though: in America, gun ownership and gun homicide rates are very closely related, with each 1% of gun ownership accounting for 0.9% of gun homicides. (source: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/ab ... 013.301409 )
Why would firearm distributors limit sales? They're private companies, they'll sell to anyone who wants to pay them. That's why we have state regulations in the first place, lol. Profit-driven isn't necessarily best for members of society, although somehow I doubt you'll agree there, considering how much pro-free market propaganda you seem to have swallowed...
Burglary also spiked after the buyback https://web.archive.org/web/20180120172 ... crime.html
But even if it did increase homicide, Australia never had a problem with homicide. I absolutely reject the notion that people's rights be infringed upon for marginal benefits at best.
And as for private means of gun control, private companies do seek generally to maximise profits, that's why it's a good idea to be discriminating in who sell your guns to. It's bad PR to have a gun you sold be an instrument in a mass shooting. Just change the federal FBI checks and change it with some private licensure scheme, and I can bet you that most vendors would adopt that as a requirement for purchase.
Well it actually seems that gun stores can deny service, which is good. But generally, private property owners aren't allowed to discriminate. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/20 ... -they-wantabraker wrote:
Firearm distributors cam deny someone service, can they? I know they may get a bed rep from it, but I am not aware of any law making it illegal.B1rd wrote:
I'd rather than responsibility be upon the community and firearm distributors. Although in current society it's basically illegal to deny service to anyone so there's your problem.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f ... le/2530362
"There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude."
I will say, though, that gun restrictions have absolutely proven effective in combating mass shootings.
"From 1979-1996 (before gun law reforms), 13 fatal mass shootings occurred in Australia, whereas from 1997 through May 2016 (after gun law reforms), no fatal mass shootings occurred."
"There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude."
I will say, though, that gun restrictions have absolutely proven effective in combating mass shootings.
"From 1979-1996 (before gun law reforms), 13 fatal mass shootings occurred in Australia, whereas from 1997 through May 2016 (after gun law reforms), no fatal mass shootings occurred."
B1rd wrote:
And as for private means of gun control, private companies do seek generally to maximise profits, that's why it's a good idea to be discriminating in who sell your guns to. It's bad PR to have a gun you sold be an instrument in a mass shooting.
I don't think this has ever been relevant; seems more like fantasy on your end. Hell, you can even argue that companies benefit from mass shootings. The massacre in Las Vegas proved that the bump stock is pretty effective, right? And let's not forget that "bulletproof backpacks" sold out (https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/regi ... in-florida) in Florida after a school shooting.
Now the government's spending a ton of money giving teachers firearms and training. Companies are making a lot of money from mass shootings.
As for Bird's point for Serbia having one of the highest gun ownership scores in the world with low homicide rates, I can't really explain it. Yes, it's true, almost every 10th household has a full auto left over from the wars in the 20th century (it's even worse in Bosnia where it's every 5th household) yet I'm guessing the shootings don't happen because... poverty? I don't see how we're any different than the chaps in Hungary or Poland for that matter - we don't have racial wars because Asians aren't into violence and we don't have that many negros, and we aren't multicultural either apart from the local cultures mixing (Hungarians, Romanians, Bosniaks, Croats etc) and the only place where violence IS prevalent is on Kosovo due to the blight known as Albanians being actual cancer and burning homes and whatnot.
So yeah, idk how else I can explain why we have it as we do.
So yeah, idk how else I can explain why we have it as we do.
Bump stocks are just gimmicks, sure they let you fire fast but also make your fire super inaccurate. Banning them is just stupid, any guy with a workbench in his shed can make a bumpstock, and you don't even need one to bump fire.
That's the second time this week I've heard the claim that "there's been no mass shootings in Australia", which isn't even correct, which you can see with just a Google search. Shows more than anything some studies are quite biased and probably defined mass shooting in some super arbitrary way. with controversial issues like this, it's best not to bother on reports by other people and just examine the data yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _Australia
There's been mass shootings, maybe you can argue that there hasn't been as many, but you could also argue that there's been more arson and vehicle attacks. Gun control may decrease mas shootings, but mass shootings are a tiny proportion of gun violence anyway. Even in the US where mass shootings seem to be a regular occurrence, they are empirically quite uncommon - the US is quite a populous country, mass shootings are over sensationalised by the media and made out to be an epidemic, when they're really not. In the USA, more people die in car accidents per day than people are killed by mass shootings every year.
Even if gun availability increases the rate of mass shootings, I don't believe it's right to restrict the rights of the majority just because a tiny, tiny proportion of people do the wrong thing. And if you think it's okay to infringe upon people's rights to save lives, then your first target should be sugar and cigarettes.
That's the second time this week I've heard the claim that "there's been no mass shootings in Australia", which isn't even correct, which you can see with just a Google search. Shows more than anything some studies are quite biased and probably defined mass shooting in some super arbitrary way. with controversial issues like this, it's best not to bother on reports by other people and just examine the data yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _Australia
There's been mass shootings, maybe you can argue that there hasn't been as many, but you could also argue that there's been more arson and vehicle attacks. Gun control may decrease mas shootings, but mass shootings are a tiny proportion of gun violence anyway. Even in the US where mass shootings seem to be a regular occurrence, they are empirically quite uncommon - the US is quite a populous country, mass shootings are over sensationalised by the media and made out to be an epidemic, when they're really not. In the USA, more people die in car accidents per day than people are killed by mass shootings every year.
Even if gun availability increases the rate of mass shootings, I don't believe it's right to restrict the rights of the majority just because a tiny, tiny proportion of people do the wrong thing. And if you think it's okay to infringe upon people's rights to save lives, then your first target should be sugar and cigarettes.
Well, I think that goes along with what I've been saying, it's not people owning guns that automatically causes violence, but societal instability and ethnic conflict being causes, with guns just being a means.Aurani wrote:
As for Bird's point for Serbia having one of the highest gun ownership scores in the world with low homicide rates, I can't really explain it. Yes, it's true, almost every 10th household has a full auto left over from the wars in the 20th century (it's even worse in Bosnia where it's every 5th household) yet I'm guessing the shootings don't happen because... poverty? I don't see how we're any different than the chaps in Hungary or Poland for that matter - we don't have racial wars because Asians aren't into violence and we don't have that many negros, and we aren't multicultural either apart from the local cultures mixing (Hungarians, Romanians, Bosniaks, Croats etc) and the only place where violence IS prevalent is on Kosovo due to the blight known as Albanians being actual cancer and burning homes and whatnot.
So yeah, idk how else I can explain why we have it as we do.