Québec mosque shooting.

[sadhatter]

The former statement is an observation and remains valid, despite your attempts to dismiss it by conflating it with the latter, which was a statement of belief that was not predicated upon the former.

Don't I get a main course with that word salad?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Don't I get a main course with that word salad?

Two separate issues:

1) The victimized group is responsible for the costs of being victimized or reducing their likelihood of being so targeted.

2) Gun ownership is empowering.

Both are views I disagree with.

You conflated the issue of bearing costs with the issue of empowerment in your response.

Besides, armed guards at mosques is probably not going to go over to well in the current climate.

 

[sadhatter]

Two separate issues:

1) The victimized group is responsible for the costs of being victimized or reducing their likelihood of being so targeted.

2) Gun ownership is empowering.

Both are views I disagree with.

You conflated the issue of bearing costs with the issue of empowerment in your response.

Besides, armed guards at mosques is probably not going to go over to well in the current climate.

I know you disagree, could you please back that up with anything. To clarify, your points against are lacking in any impact, saying guns cost money is simply pointing out the obvious.

You have not made any rebuttal to my counter points simply re stated a piece of information about capitalism that everyone already knows.

Guns cost money the people who could use guns would be the ones paying, I concede that is a thing, but that has no bearing on whether having and using them is helpful or not.

It would be like if we were talking about a mosque that burned down and your response was "fire extinguishers wouldn't help, the government doesn't pay for them. ". The first part of the statement has nothing to do with the second it is merely staying a random fact about fire extinguishers.

Random tidbits of information are not an arguement against something.

Could you try making a little sense please?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I know you disagree, could you please back that up with anything. To clarify, your points against are lacking in any impact, saying guns cost money is simply pointing out the obvious.

You feel my points against lack impact.

I give no ***** about that. Deal with it and move on with your life.

You have not made any rebuttal to my counter points simply re stated a piece of information about capitalism that everyone already knows.

I made a rebuttal, you don't like my rebuttal. That doesn't compel me to have to do anything.

Guns cost money the people who could use guns would be the ones paying, I concede that is a thing, but that has no bearing on whether having and using them is helpful or not.

They already paid for guns to protect them by being citizens and paying taxes that support police departments.

It would be like if we were talking about a mosque that burned down and your response was "fire extinguishers wouldn't help, the government doesn't pay for them. ". The first part of the statement has nothing to do with the second it is merely staying a random fact about fire extinguishers.

Well, unless you mean burned down by arson, then no, it's nothing remotely like being opened fire upon by a hateful little maggot.

Random tidbits of information are not an arguement against something.

Could you try making a little sense please?

No, because you clearly don't care to understand, so why waste any more effort?

I don't think innocent people should pay the price for what criminals do.

It's not an objective argument that either of us can provide evidence for or against.

Sorry you're having a tough time with that.

 

[McHrozni]

The states are too well gerrymandered for the house to swing democratic.

Gerrymandering is a double edged sword. All things being equal it provides you a solid majority in representation with only a tiny majority (or plurality) of votes. The stronger the gerrymandering the greater the danger of massive swings against you from only marginal shifts in the opinion of the electorate.

The thing is, with Trump at the helm, everything will not be equal. He is absolutely reviled among Democrats, ensuring a high level of voter participation from their base. He is alienating many Republican supporters and panders mostly to the deplorable vote, which could well drive down Republican voter participation. Other than loads of empty promises and hot air, he will not deliver much in the next two years.

Granted, deplorables will still vote for him, but if he manages to drive down overall Republican participation somewhat and drive up Democrat participation and have independents break against him, there could well be a blue wave in 2018.

Think of it this way, Republican gerrymandering has made the seats Democrats do hold secure. Republicans will not be able to seriously threaten them in their home constituencies, even if they become significantly more popular than they are. On the other hand, comparatively minor swings of the electorate could result in massive seat swings towards Democrats.

There is also the demographic shift, which favors the Democrats. Two years isn't very long for this factor, but this is in addition to all the other factors mentioned already.

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

So there shouldn't be a single church in Egypt or Syria or Iraq or Israel or Japan, or many other places? Because if there was no diversity there would be no conflict; same as if your feet were cut off you would never have ingrown toenails I suppose.

Not just that if it wasn't for the... Er.... Er... them there wouldn't be any conflicts, I mean when was the last time two white Christian countries went to war? Bet you can't even think of one example in the last 2000 years of human history!

 

[McHrozni]

Anybody else thinks this is something that would have fit in perfecty in Germany in the 1930's?

I don't, Germany in the 1930's was all for destroying cultures it deemed inferior. He wants cultures to remain as they are, separated by walls and fences, having only minimal contact. His 'thinking' fits exceptionally well in modern North Korea.

Whether that's a step up, a step down or not significantly different is a matter of debte.

McHrozni