So this is what we are expected to learn
-
@Benn said:
As you yourself so eloquently argue, the US is a more violent nation than most of the rest of the world. Is that a good reason for making the dangerous toys more freely available?
Tools, not toys. The fact that you don't know the difference makes me glad you will never be allowed to touch a firearm. And actually, yes it does support that argument. See, if the US has a historically higher murder rate than the UK, then people here have a higher need for weapons to defend themselves with. What good is a gun in a country that doesn't have any crime at all? Of course, nobody lives in such a country because this is the real world and not the fantasyland you want to pretend it is. Regardless, you once again seem to miss the point that the excluding murder the US has a lower crime rate than the UK and that the US crime rate has been falling as more states allow concealed carry whereas the UK crime rate his risen since self-defense was made illegal. Chicago and Washington, DC are two of the most dangerous cities in the US. The murder rates there are just unbelievable. What do both of these cities have in common? Local regulations have made posession of firearms by law-abiding citizens illegal. Of course, the criminals still have guns but anyone who wants to actually stay on the right side of the law is forbidden from owning one. Their only option is to pull a European and lay on the floor while criminals do whatever they want and then call the police afterwards. Of course, this assumes that they aren't bleeding to death from a gunshot wound inflicted by the intruder. Thank God the wise politicians of Chicago and DC have made their cities safer by outlawing guns!
Meanwhile, when the hell is this thread going to be locked? I'm tired of arguing with a bunch of pansy nitwits who think the government is always going to be there to swoop in and protect them from the bad men. This has gotten way off-topic and I really detest arguing politics on an IT forum anyway -- I don't think it has any place here but apparently some people felt it necessary to spread anti-American lies and there is no way I will let that stand uncorrected. I'm also a bit disgusted with Europe right now as the responses here make me think it is a continent full of whiny, spoiled ingrates. I never had much of a problem with Europeans before, I just figured they were normal people with funny accents and less of an emphasis on personal hygiene, but now I'm starting to suspect many Europeans are nauseatingly ignorant political extremists. Seriously, just let this thread die so you guys can go back to being overrun with Muslim fundamentalists, holding protests against the weather and surrendering to various things.
-
@Benn said:
New York City was just under twice that of the whole of Europe. I should think so - big nasty city like that.
Newsflash: Guns are illegal in NYC, so everytime you argue that it is a 'big nasty city' with lots of violence, you are arguing OUR case. We don't want to see our cities end up like NYC.
Why don't you look up homicide rates in Vermont? There are practically no firearm laws in Vermont. Wouldn't this be the 'cowboy' environment you are lookin for?
Here I will help: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/vtcrime.htm
Murder per 100k citizens? <font size="-1">1.9 </font>
-
@morbiuswilters said:
What good is a gun in a country that doesn't have any crime at all?
Hunting, target shooting, protection against wild animals? There are many uses for a tool.
Just like a hammer can be used to put in a nail, take out a nail or beat someone to death.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Hunting, target shooting, protection against wild animals? There are many uses for a tool.
Sure, I was specifically referring to self-defense, though. If you read whoever-the-fuck I was replying to you see they were arguing that legal gun ownership should not be allowed in violent countries. The implication is that legal gun ownership would be fine in a country without crime, which would also be quite pointless (from a self-defense perspective).
-
@morbiuswilters said:
There's a reason alcohol is referred to as "Dutch Courage".
Wait, that wasn't because Brittan was at war with Holland quite often in earlier history and thus everything "Dutch" was negative? I've been lied to all my life!
@morbiuswilters said:@DOA said:
There was Holland, a country close to Germany outgunned, outnumbered under assault when blietzkrieg was still under way and noone had yet found a way to counter it and those wussies lost.
Yes, remaining neutral, surrendering after 7 days and then assisting occupying forces in genocide sure sounds valiant to me!
Yes, because occupied contries have a lot to choose. Every important person was replaced by a NSB-member (NSB=Nationaal Sociatilische Beweging, or nazi movement) and roads or railtracks don't have much to choose. Are you going to accuse all of the Iraki and Afghani of assisting occupying forces in finding terrorists? There was something called "The Resistance" too then you know.
Secondly, most of the jews in Holland back then were the ones who fled from Germany and were sheltered by the Dutch government, for as long as they could.@DOA said:
In the meantime the US, a superpower on the other side of the globe...
The US wasn't a superpower until after WWII. Learn your history.
The US was a superpower since WW I. Until the US got involved, WO I was stuck like a car in the NYC morning rush.
I still find it strange you accuse Holland of cowardness, when they fought a hopeless fight against a military superpower. Meawhile, the US did nothing until a few bombs where dropped in their backyard and the British evacuated the mainland as soon as the Netherlands and Belgium were attacked.I'm not saying the American or Britisch or French or Germans or the Danish or the whatever are cowards, I'm not saying I agree with all decisions made back then (Dutch, German, Allied or otherwise), I'm just saying trying to remain neutral by not choosing between former occupants (French), former enemies (English) and the largest trading partner (Germany) was not that bad of a decision.
-
@dtech said:
NSB-member (NSB=Nationaal Sociatilische Beweging, or nazi movement)
Good idea, if we say we cooperated with the NSB it sounds much better than we cooperated with the Nazis!
@dtech said:
There was something called "The Resistance" too then you know.
I am sure their finger wagging won the war and repelled the Nazis too.
-
@dtech said:
Wait, that wasn't because Brittan was at war with Holland quite often in earlier history and thus everything "Dutch" was negative? I've been lied to all my life!
Like a Dutch Rub, the most painful form of torture known to man? Maybe you should learn the subtle art of humor. Still, I'm increasingly glad my ancestors were able to flee that shithole of a country and move to the US.
@dtech said:
Are you going to accuse all of the Iraki and Afghani of assisting occupying forces in finding terrorists?
Accuse? One would hope they would assist in flushing the scum out, but that's probably too much to ask for. Are you seriously equating terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan to Jews in Holland? I mean, if so I take back all my comments about the Dutch being cowardly. That takes some big fucking balls, man.
@dtech said:
There was something called "The Resistance" too then you know. Secondly, most of the jews in Holland back then were the ones who fled from Germany and were sheltered by the Dutch government, for as long as they could.
Yes, I'm aware that some Dutch did fight back against the occupying force. I didn't mean to besmirch their good name or doubt their valour. However, the majority of the Dutch people gave in and many even assisted in rounding-up and killing Jews, just like in most of the occupied countries. Now, I don't want to say that given the circumstances of the time those who chose to be occupied were wrong, but given hindsight I can't see how anyone would possibly think that the right thing to do. Many Dutch citizens went about their lives and did not try to oppose the Germans. If someone invaded my country I wouldn't sit idly by until someone else rescued me, I would grab whatever weapons I could (which thankfully includes plenty of guns) and would fight until they were dead or I was. I think a good deal of my countrymen would do the same, which is maybe why we're the ones who end up having to rescue people like you.
@dtech said:
The US was a superpower since WW I.
From the Wikipedia article on superpower: "It was a term first applied in 1944 to the United States, the Soviet Union, and the British Empire."
@dtech said:
Until the US got involved, WO I was stuck like a car in the NYC morning rush.
Yeah, because everybody hid in trenches and lobbed gas at each other. It took Americans standing their ground to break the back of the German forces.
@dtech said:
I still find it strange you accuse Holland of cowardness, when they fought a hopeless fight against a military superpower.
They fought some, but once they surrendered they were pretty much as gentle as lambs to the occupying forces.
@dtech said:
Meawhile, the US did nothing until a few bombs where dropped in their backyard and the British evacuated the mainland as soon as the Netherlands and Belgium were attacked.
Sorry, I forgot that we were supposed to save everyone else's ass. Of course when we do that assholes like you screech about imperialism. Honesty, the US probably should have just stayed out of the war in Europe until we built nukes and then just blown the whole worthless continent to hell.
@dtech said:
I'm just saying trying to remain neutral by not choosing between former occupants (French), former enemies (English) and the largest trading partner (Germany) was not that bad of a decision.
Yes, remaining "neutral" in the face of an evil that desired to turn your countrymen into slaves and murder an entire race "was not that bad of a decision".
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I think if US citizens were allowed to carry guns on planes then 9/11 would be little more than a cheesy movie plot.
If US citizens were allowed to carry guns on planes, we would see more than one plane per year depressurised and maybe crashed because of an unruly redneck blowing a window out.
-
@alegr said:
we would see more than one plane per year depressurised and maybe crashed because of an unruly redneck blowing a window out.
Where do you get these ideas from?
Jesus christ, you really need to awaken from this brainwashing you have been put through.
-
@alegr said:
If US citizens were allowed to carry guns on planes, we would see more than one plane per year depressurised and maybe crashed because of an unruly redneck blowing a window out.
If I could take a shotgun on the plane I'd certainly shoot at passing geese out the window. Seriously, no person with a concealed carry permit is going to just start shooting up the plane for the hell of it.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
OK, so in the US you are over twice as likely to be shot dead than in Canada, almost 3 times than in the UK and over 4 times more than in Australia and New Zealand.
If you think you guys are safer and freer than those counties, then fill your boots. In fact, you are so free that you can't even read a poker fourm. Good luck with that freedom!
Remind me again how this is related to gun ownership??
You are reverting back to this point depsite all the evidence staring you right in the face.
Look at our number of large cities with population density in the US and England. That would explain a lot more than anything you have said so far.
Time to face facts: You are wrong. There is no correlation (in violence) between gun ownership and violent crimes. Also, you and most of the others arguing here are full of propaganda and fantasies about grocery store gun buying and a 'cowboy culture'.
Its related because you have to regularly stated that you need your guns to protect your freedom and that European nations are backwater, cowardly pussies. I was merely pointing out that the whole 'America us the free-est country in the world' is actually a falacy. The only freedom you have that I don't is the right to own more dangerous weaponary and you are denied rights that most countries grant. The right to own an assulat rifle is not a right I'd want, need or miss. In the same way I don't need to own tanks, mines or nuclear weapons. The 2nd ammendment of the consitution states:
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Therefore you could argue that, in order to warn a corrupt government off seizing absolute power, every man, woman and child in the US should be allowed to own a tank because a tank are 'arms' by definition. But you won't, because owning tanks would be 'crazy', in the same way I think it is crazy that you can own AK47's, M16s etc in the US with relative ease.
Additionally, your argument that the strict control laws make it acceptable is complete rubbish. They are rubbish because you are putting 100% faith in the system, measurement, processing and science of adjudicating who is right and proper to own a gun. And the fact is that any barrister/lawyer (in this country anyway, I happen to know many) will tell you that almost all murders are acts of passion and the murderer would almost certainly never kill again, and these people would almost certainly have passed your gun ownership tests. I wonder how many acts of domestic violence in this country would result in shootings if we lived in your free utopian paradise where John could unload his Kalashikov into Jane.
The only evidence staring me in the face is that if I were to live in the US, I would be mouch more likely to be shot dead than in ANY other developed nation, with the expcetion of South Africa, but many would argue the exact level of social development in that country.
Also, I really do think you need to modify your debating tactics. Calling people pussies, cowards and telling them they are flat wrong is a relatively weak standpoint. Pretty much every debate I've seen you involved in ends with the same behaviour.
-
@alegr said:
That's a sterling opinion you hold regarding the American populous. What exciting theory can we look forward to next from you? Do you think Polish shouldn't be allowed on submarines, because they'll try to install a screen door? Perhaps you feel that women shouldn't be heads of state because they'll launch nuclear warheads when they get PMS?@morbiuswilters said:
I think if US citizens were allowed to carry guns on planes then 9/11 would be little more than a cheesy movie plot.
If US citizens were allowed to carry guns on planes, we would see more than one plane per year depressurised and maybe crashed because of an unruly redneck blowing a window out.
-
@bstorer said:
Do you think Polish shouldn't be allowed on submarines, because they'll try to install a screen door?
Hey, the Polish are quite scientifically advanced! They sent that rocketship to the sun, after all.
@bstorer said:
Perhaps you feel that women shouldn't be heads of state because they'll launch nuclear warheads when they get PMS?
What if she mensturates all over the Bill of Rights? We'd lose the ability to own guns! Besides, how would she deal with delicate international negotiations? It's not like she can just give blowjobs to every world leader..
-
@slyadams said:
The right to own an assulat rifle is not a right I'd want
Who is arguing FOR this?? You haven't actualy been reading any of this have you?
@slyadams said:
you can own AK47's, M16s etc in the US with relative ease.
Really? Where are you referring to?
Assault weapons ban. Applies to most states (used to be federal). Heard of it? Regardless, there is NO ONE HERE ARGUING THIS, YOU FUCKING RETARD,
@slyadams said:
Additionally, your argument that the strict control laws make it acceptable is complete rubbish. They are rubbish because you are putting 100% faith in the system, measurement, processing and science of adjudicating who is right and proper to own a gun. And the fact is that any barrister/lawyer (in this country anyway, I happen to know many) will tell you that almost all murders are acts of passion and the murderer would almost certainly never kill again, and these people would almost certainly have passed your gun ownership tests. I wonder how many acts of domestic violence in this country would result in shootings if we lived in your free utopian paradise where John could unload his Kalashikov into Jane.
Again, we have CCW permits and legal members of society who own and use firearms here. Please provide the statistics of all these killings that occur by CCW permit holders. You sure argue like it is fact, now prove it.
@slyadams said:
Also, I really do think you need to modify your debating tactics. Calling people pussies, cowards and telling them they are flat wrong is a relatively weak standpoint. Pretty much every debate I've seen you involved in ends with the same behaviour.
What is it with the people in this thread? When did I call anyone a pussy or a coward? You are confusing me with morbiuswilters... jesus, learn to fucking read.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Besides, how would she deal with delicate international negotiations? It's not like she can just give blowjobs to every world leader..
Why not? I believe I saw a documentary to that effect.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@dtech said:
Wait, that wasn't because Brittan was at war with Holland quite often in earlier history and thus everything "Dutch" was negative? I've been lied to all my life!
Like a Dutch Rub, the most painful form of torture known to man? Maybe you should learn the subtle art of humor. Still, I'm increasingly glad my ancestors were able to flee that shithole of a country and move to the US.
If you mean [url=http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dutch+rub]the dutch rub I know about[/url] your totally right. Rubbing your knuckles on someone's head is nothing compared to waterboarding or being on a rack.
@morbiuswilters said:@dtech said:
Are you going to accuse all of the Iraki and Afghani of assisting occupying forces in finding terrorists?
Accuse? One would hope they would assist in flushing the scum out, but that's probably too much to ask for. Are you seriously equating terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan to Jews in Holland? I mean, if so I take back all my comments about the Dutch being cowardly. That takes some big fucking balls, man.
Yes I am. You seem to miss the abstract concept of "bad according to the invadors" and "nothing wrong with according to the occupants". Consider a hypothetical future were the US is just a wasteland and the middle east is a new superpower. A future-morbius could accuse the future-afghani of being a coward because his ancestors did not oppose the invaders (if you say: they shoot missiles at the US daily, you already said that the small minority didn't matter).
but given hindsight I can't see how anyone would possibly think that the right thing to do.
I never ever said that
If someone invaded my country I wouldn't sit idly by until someone else rescued me, I would grab whatever weapons I could (which thankfully includes plenty of guns) and would fight until they were dead or I was.
I'll keep you to that. Maybe you're really like that, but then I'd expect you to join the army to fight for your country.
From the Wikipedia article on superpower: "It was a term first applied in 1944 to the United States, the Soviet Union, and the British Empire."
I wasn't talking about the "term" superpower. In your logic, neither Germany, France, Russia, Italy or America where superpowers in WO I. But they did manage to kick the crap out of each other.
You do [b]if you're in an alliance[/b]. Personally, I think the world would nowadays be a little bit better place if the US didn't feel the need to "save" everyone. Yet you demand that not only everyone agrees with you making sure you've got enough oil, but at the same time demand that other countries help you (using the NATO as backup).Sorry, I forgot that we were supposed to save everyone else's ass. Of course when we do that assholes like you screech about imperialism. Honesty, the US probably should have just stayed out of the war in Europe until we built nukes and then just blown the whole worthless continent to hell.
Once again, the US remained neutral at the same face of evil . Furthermore, no-one could've predicted what happened. Let me quote a dutch saying: "Afterwards you can look a cow in the ass". Should the whole world have cut his bands with the US back when there was discrimination against black people? If I hear you talking they should've, its not that much different with how Germany started with the jews.@dtech said:
I'm just saying trying to remain neutral by not choosing between former occupants (French), former enemies (English) and the largest trading partner (Germany) was not that bad of a decision.
Yes, remaining "neutral" in the face of an evil that desired to turn your countrymen into slaves and murder an entire race "was not that bad of a decision".
-
@slyadams said:
Also, I really do think you need to modify your debating tactics. Calling people pussies, cowards and telling them they are flat wrong is a relatively weak standpoint. Pretty much every debate I've seen you involved in ends with the same behaviour.
Amen
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
[...] NO ONE HERE ARGUING THIS, YOU FUCKING RETARD [...]
@slyadams said:Also, I really do think you need to modify your debating tactics. Calling people pussies, cowards and telling them they are flat wrong is a relatively weak standpoint. Pretty much every debate I've seen you involved in ends with the same behaviour.
What is it with the people in this thread? When did I call anyone a pussy or a coward? You are confusing me with morbiuswilters... jesus, learn to fucking read.
Yes, because calling someone a fucking retard is sooooooo much different from calling someone a coward.
-
Once again, the US remained neutral at the same face of evil .
I'd like to change that to "Once again, the US remained allied but did nothing at the same face of evil" before morbius writes another post with 20% curse words because of that error I made....
-
@dtech said:
Furthermore, no-one could've predicted what happened. Let me quote a dutch saying: "Afterwards you can look a cow in the ass". Should the whole world have cut his bands with the US back when there was discrimination against black people? If I hear you talking they should've, its not that much different with how Germany started with the jews.
Not to mentioned what the US did to the japannesse americans during the WWII.
-
@dtech said:
If you mean the dutch rub I know about your totally right. Rubbing your knuckles on someone's head is nothing compared to waterboarding or being on a rack.
The Dutch: humorless and cowardly! Your inability to understand jokes reassures me that even though I am one quarter Dutch I have nothing in common with your miserable nationality.
@dtech said:
Yes I am. You seem to miss the abstract concept of "bad according to the invadors" and "nothing wrong with according to the occupants".
What in the fuck are you even talking about? If Iraqis and Afghanis assist in driving our terrorists they would be the opposite of cowardly. If the Dutch hand over innocent Jews to their German masters for the purposes of being murdered they are being cowardly. Does this point somehow elude you?
@dtech said:
I'll keep you to that. Maybe you're really like that, but then I'd expect you to join the army to fight for your country.
"Maybe I'm really like that"? I guess the Dutch are so valiant that the concept of a citizen who would stand up to an occupying force is just unthinkable. And sure I would join the Army if we were being invaded, assuming the military was still intact. If it was not, I would join up with other citizens and fight back. There's no way in hell I'd roll over and let the invaders do whatever they pleased nor would I betray my fellow countrymen by handing them over to be butchered. I guess loyalty is another concept the Dutch are unfamiliar with.
@dtech said:
I wasn't talking about the "term" superpower.
"See, when I use words I don't actually mean those words but instead other words that are consistent with reality. It's not my fault the definitions don't bend to my will!" Seriously, the term is well-defined as has been all along. The Dutch education system must be pretty pathetic if this is the first time you've ecountered the historical concept of a superpower.
@dtech said:
You do if you're in an alliance. Personally, I think the world would nowadays be a little bit better place if the US didn't feel the need to "save" everyone. Yet you demand that not only everyone agrees with you making sure you've got enough oil, but at the same time demand that other countries help you (using the NATO as backup).
You don't need an alliance to defend your interests. I actually agree that the US should just stay the fuck out of the rest of the world's problems. Holland would be part of the Soviet Union and you'd be out picking turnips instead of vomiting your ignorance all over the Internet.
@dtech said:
Once again, the US remained neutral at the same face of evil .
We remained neutral because it wasn't our conflict. We weren't in danger of being overrun. Eventually we took pity on your sorry asses and bailed you out yet again, but like I said we probably should have just nuked the whole continent and been done with it.
@dtech said:
Furthermore, no-one could've predicted what happened. Let me quote a dutch saying: "Afterwards you can look a cow in the ass".
More Dutch wisdom! And that's an utter lie. Everyone in the world knew the Germans were planning to murder the Jews en-masse. It was not a secret, people like grandparents just looked the other way or even assisted in rounding Jews up.
@dtech said:
Should the whole world have cut his bands with the US back when there was discrimination against black people? If I hear you talking they should've, its not that much different with how Germany started with the jews.
Our history of racism and slavery is shameful to say the least, but it did not proceed in the same way as the Holocaust. It was a slow, painful move from slavery to equal rights but it never turned towards genocide. And the Dutch have their own fine history of slavery, so I wouldn't throw stones here. I think if you ask most black Americans, they would have appreciated some support from the international community, but it ended up being a war we had to fight on our own.
-
@stratos said:
Not to mentioned what the US did to the japannesse americans during the WWII.
Internment camps? I mean, it's nothing to be proud of, but we weren't killing them by the boatload. I guess Europeans are too stupid to know the difference, though.
I would also like to point out that it was the Dutch who started bringing slaves to the US in the first place. Gasp! That cannot be! Sadly, it is. While the English probably would have started the slave trade on their own anyway, it was all started by a cowardly little country below sea level.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I would also like to point out that it was the Dutch who started bringing slaves to the US in the first place. Gasp! That cannot be! Sadly, it is. While the English probably would have started the slave trade on their own anyway, it was all started by a cowardly little country below sea level.
To be fair, the Portugese had already begun the slave trade to Brazil some 70 years before.
-
@dtech said:
Yes, because calling someone a fucking retard is sooooooo much different from calling someone a coward.
First, I applaud your use of the elongated "so" to indicate your sarcasm. But I must disagree with your point. When morbius calls you or anyone else here a "pussy" or "coward", he's mostly basing it on your nationality and the historical failings of your country. On the other hand, when MPS calls you a retard, he is judging you based upon the intelligence (or lack thereof) that you have demonstrated. So, in short, morbius's remarks are based upon sterotypes, while MPS's are based upon snap judgments. Hope that clears things up, you retarded cowardly pussies.
-
@dtech said:
Yes, because calling someone a fucking retard is sooooooo much different from calling someone a coward.
Of course it is different. Morbius is calling you a country of cowards to offend you. I am calling him a retard because I have been trying to tell him he is arguing against a point no one here is making.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@dtech said:
Once again, the US remained neutral at the same face of evil .
We remained neutral because it wasn't our conflict. We weren't in danger of being overrun. Eventually we took pity on your sorry asses and bailed you out yet again, but like I said we probably should have just nuked the whole continent and been done with it.
Wait... I thought we should follow dtech's advice and not get into wars to 'save' people. Therefore maybe we should go 'undo' our involvement in WWII.
-
@bstorer said:
To be fair, the Portugese had already begun the slave trade to Brazil some 70 years before.
Being from Virginia you would know all about the slave trade.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@dtech said:
If you mean the dutch rub I know about your totally right. Rubbing your knuckles on someone's head is nothing compared to waterboarding or being on a rack.
The Dutch: humorless and cowardly! Your inability to understand jokes reassures me that even though I am one quarter Dutch I have nothing in common with your miserable nationality.
I sense some deep-rooted family issues here. Do you want to talk about them?
You're argument was that the US wasn't a superpower back then because no-one used the word yet. My point is that with superpower I mean: "A nation/alliance with high or superior influential power, often though military means". [url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superpower]webster[/url] says something alike. Using that definition, the US was a superpower back then."See, when I use words I don't actually mean those words but instead other words that are consistent with reality. It's not my fault the definitions don't bend to my will!" Seriously, the term is well-defined as has been all along.
More Dutch wisdom! And that's an utter lie. Everyone in the world knew the Germans were planning to murder the Jews en-masse. It was not a secret,
I'd like to see one source from before 1940 that predicted precisely that. And whit that I mean something like this: "The Germans will commit genocide/murder jews en masse in the future".
No, buth there was no less indication that it would end with genocide than there was around 1935 with Germany.Our history of racism and slavery is shameful to say the least, but it did not proceed in the same way as the Holocaust. It was a slow, painful move from slavery to equal rights but it never turned towards genocide.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I'm not from Virginia. I wasn't educated there, so I don't have the benefit of their extensive course program on slavery. I'm just your average handsome, modest renaissance man...@bstorer said:
To be fair, the Portugese had already begun the slave trade to Brazil some 70 years before.
Being from Virginia you would know all about the slave trade.
-
@dtech said:
You're argument was that the US wasn't a superpower back then because no-one used the word yet. My point is that with superpower I mean: "A nation/alliance with high or superior influential power, often though military means". webster says something alike. Using that definition, the US was a superpower back then.
I'm starting to understand why I've never heard of a great Dutch debater.
@dtech said:
I'd like to see one source from before 1940 that predicted precisely that. And whit that I mean something like this: "The Germans will commit genocide/murder jews en masse in the future".
Hitler himself spoke of a final solution to the Jewish problem during this 1935 speech concerning the Nuremburg Laws. This was euphemistic, but everyone knew what it meant. Prior to the election of the Nazis to power in 1933 the "Jewish question" was very important in German politics. Most Germans wanted to rid themselves of the Jews but there were many different suggested methods for accomplishing this, ranging from expulsion to outright murder. The Nazi Party became politically popular due to the hard line they took on the issue as well as the willingness of Hitler to solve the problem however would be necessary. Once cannot read Mein Kampf nor the speeches of Adolf Hitler and not see the clear plans to kill all European Jews.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@dtech said:
You're argument was that the US wasn't a superpower back then because no-one used the word yet. My point is that with superpower I mean: "A nation/alliance with high or superior influential power, often though military means". webster says something alike. Using that definition, the US was a superpower back then.
I'm starting to understand why I've never heard of a great Dutch debater.
How many dutch did you meet, and with how much did you try to debate? You should've met [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn]Pim Fortuyn[/url] (who didn't end up very fortunate in the end)
@morbiuswilters said:@dtech said:
I'd like to see one source from before 1940 that predicted precisely that. And whit that I mean something like this: "The Germans will commit genocide/murder jews en masse in the future".
Hitler himself spoke of a final solution to the Jewish problem during this 1935 speech concerning the Nuremburg Laws. This was euphemistic, but everyone knew what it meant. Prior to the election of the Nazis to power in 1933 the "Jewish question" was very important in German politics. Most Germans wanted to rid themselves of the Jews but there were many different suggested methods for accomplishing this, ranging from expulsion to outright murder. The Nazi Party became politically popular due to the hard line they took on the issue as well as the willingness of Hitler to solve the problem however would be necessary. Once cannot read Mein Kampf nor the speeches of Adolf Hitler and not see the clear plans to kill all European Jews.
Afaik Hitler was elected mainly because he promised to solve (and did solve) the large unemployment problem and provided a scapegoat for all of the problems (the Jews). He also got to power with a coup btw, he wasn't elected. (he didn't have a majority, but tricked the largest Cristian party into supporting him).
I still do not see signs of probable genocide, only of hate against Jews. I'd think he'd force all Jews to emigrate out of Germany, which is exactly what he did during the 30's.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Most Germans wanted to rid themselves of the Jews but there were many different suggested methods for accomplishing this, ranging from expulsion to outright murder. The Nazi Party became politically popular due to the hard line they took on the issue as well as the willingness of Hitler to solve the problem however would be necessary.
not the only reason they rose to power, but one cause undoubtedly.
Can i try to be neutral and say my opinion without being misinterpreted please? thanks:
1] there was resistance in occupied countries during WWII, and i would not call holland's co-operation cowardly; a lack of outright violence against a dictator does not indicate acceptance of their views - hence the covert resistance
2] History has no bearing on the state of gun laws today - i dont even know why we're here. what happened happened, and it is ridiculous to flame others because of choices they have no bearing on.
3] I think the US/europe gun thing is primarily cultural. If, in the US, you want to CCW [hope i got that right] then fill your boots, but please respect that our countries have the right to our own choices without being flamed and called names. Just because I do not own or want to own or feel the need to own a weapon does not make me cowardly, just different. If someone broke into my house i would most certainly defend myself/my family/my possessions, but i do not feel the need to own a gun to do this; this point of view does not make me nor my countrymen cowards or pussies.
I think the fact is that the differences of opinion are unlikely to be reconciled any time soon, so - while i enjoy debate on any topic - we should all appreciate that differences do indeed exist, and just because my and my country's ways are different from yours, they are not wrong nor anything to be ashamed of or picked on for. MPS has said many times [correct me if im wrong] that there is almost no correlation between gun laws and violent crime - so does it really matter that i would rather not carry? While you have been brought up believing one thing, I have been brought up with my convictions in an opposed direction, and i honestly dont think that calling my [i]continent[/i] cowards is the way to argue, nor the way to keep this conversation logical and calm.
Enjoy carrying guns in the US, and please feel free to say why you believe its a good thing, but respect that the decisions of my country deserve respect as much as yours do. I know [or at least suspect] that a lot of is it tongue-in-cheek or joking, but its really not necessary nor the sort of thing that otherwise rational adults should be engaging in. There, ive said my piece, and i hope that no-one finds too much of offense in there, since ive tried to keep it neutral :P
-
@jakkle said:
2] History has no bearing on the state of gun laws today - i dont even know why we're here. what happened happened, and it is ridiculous to flame others because of choices they have no bearing on.
Noticed how my OP was about a university-signup-site containing an error? Welcome to the internet ;)
-
@dtech said:
How many dutch did you meet, and with how much did you try to debate? You should've met Pim Fortuyn (who didn't end up very fortunate in the end)
So you had one smart, strong leader and you killed him? Way to go, Netherlands. Too bad he wasn't living in a civilized country like The Netherlands where people are never gunned down in the middle of the street. He lived where? No shit? Well, it's good he lived in a country that was so civilized he was able to arm himself against radical psychopaths who might want to assassinate him.
@dtech said:
Afaik Hitler was elected mainly because he promised to solve (and did solve) the large unemployment problem and provided a scapegoat for all of the problems (the Jews).
Hitler was never elected, he was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg. Regardless, the Nazi party was elected and the Party's anti-Jewish rhetoric went over quite well with the German population.
@dtech said:
He also got to power with a coup btw, he wasn't elected. (he didn't have a majority, but tricked the largest Cristian party into supporting him).
Not a majority, but the Nazis were the largest party in the Reichstag and as I said, quite popular. And getting democratically-elected members of parliament to support you is now considered a coup?
@dtech said:
I still do not see signs of probable genocide, only of hate against Jews. I'd think he'd force all Jews to emigrate out of Germany, which is exactly what he did during the 30's.
Then you need to study your 20th century European history, dumbass.
-
@jakkle said:
Enjoy carrying guns in the US, and please feel free to say why you believe its a good thing, but respect that the decisions of my country deserve respect as much as yours do
Jakkle, love your post, except I think you keep attacking the wrong issue here. We are not flaming anyone because they don't want to own a gun. I don't care if anyone else in this world wants to own a firearm, let alone carry it.
However, the original post that started this war is DOA's stupid, ignorant comments about 'any nutjob in the US can own a gun' and then dtech's continual ignorance splashed all over the thread.
Then we had every idiot in the world decide to tell us what is wrong with OUR gun laws, despite a clear lack of understanding of OUR laws.
So in response to the sentence I am quoting: We will enjoy ourselves and our right to personal protection and fun. But please stop pretending like owning or carrying a gun is somehow ruthless, savage, or in anyway uncivilized. And don't make ridiculous claims like other people in this thread have made.
-
@dtech said:
Noticed how my OP was about a university-signup-site containing an error? Welcome to the internet
Gone from that to pointless bickering to Nazis. The Pattern is complete!
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
you can own AK47's, M16s etc in the US with relative ease.
Really? Where are you referring to?
Assault weapons ban. Applies to most states (used to be federal). Heard of it? Regardless, there is NO ONE HERE ARGUING THIS, YOU FUCKING RETARD,
Actually, that's the impression many Europeans have. Movies like "Bowling for Columbine" do little to correct that impression. When the topic comes up, our TV shows us families at a firing range where daddy teaches his little boy or girl (~10yo) how to fire a semiautomatic weapon.
-
@ammoQ said:
Actually, that's the impression many Europeans have. Movies like "Bowling for Columbine" do little to correct that impression. When the topic comes up, our TV shows us families at a firing range where daddy teaches his little boy or girl (~10yo) how to fire a semiautomatic weapon.
Hype! All friggin' hype! Don't believe the media! Seriously. There are plenty of Americans that make it look bad for their own country, just as there are plenty that do likewise for all other countries. Just because Daddy wants to teach his kid how to fire a weapon doesn't mean all kids are armed. There are parents take their kids hunting, ya know. Teaching kids how to use a weapon makes them less likely to have accidents around them.
-
@ammoQ said:
how to fire a semiautomatic weapon.
What is wrong with a semiautomatic weapon now?
They were arguing about 'assault weapons'.
For those of you who cannot quite seem to understand what you are arguing about: There are single shot (bolt action rifles), semi automatic (each squeeze of the trigger fires a round), full auto (hold the trigger, magazine empties).
An assault weapon is considered a weapon that can 'select' either semi-auto or full auto (burst fire in the case of a few like the M16). A full auto only weapon IS NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON. A sem-auto only weapon IS NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON.
So everyone arguing about 'semi-auto assault' weapons needs to learn what they are actually talking about. There is no significant reason why anyone should be more against a semi auto rifle than a bolt action rifle, or a pump action shotgun, or a semi-auto shotgun.
-
@AbbydonKrafts said:
Just because Daddy wants to teach his kid how to fire a weapon
Yeah really, I have been brought up shooting bolt action and semi auto rifles... I have taught kids (in our family with their parent's permission) how to shoot both types of rifle. How on earth is that a bad thing to teach kids???
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
But please stop pretending like owning or carrying a gun is somehow ruthless, savage, or in anyway uncivilized. And don't make ridiculous claims like other people in this thread have made.
No problem: i admit i dont know enough about the US gun control systems to begin to argue, and i dont think its savage nor uncivilised - its just not what im used to, in the same way i would not call small tribes in the Amazon rainforest 'uncivilised': such a thing is ignorant and ill-informed. No doubt if i came and lived in the US i would see things differently, and agree with you, but since im in the UK, a different opinion is bred into me. If im honest im not sure whether laws allowing CCW would be a good or a bad thing - i have never been exposed to it, and so i tend to side with what i have experienced.
I totally agree the arrogance and lack of understanding on the part of some in this thread has been nauseating, and it's good to know that its this youre annoyed with rather than our laws. On that subject its always good to learn more about your laws and country, so thanks.
-
Mmm i actaully tried searching for full auto guns on the internet, but found out that while there are shops that sell them, those shops (and presumably all shops?) will only deliver them to licensed shops/clubs (FFL licensed, or something). Now assuming those FFL licensed places are under strict control by either the goverment or some oversight commision, it isn't half as bad as i would have thought.
Now i still believe its probebly easier to get a full auto rifle under the table somewhere in the US then in a north western euro country, the legal way to get a gun is less fucked up as the media would make you think.
But stuff like this still looks weird to me. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4647190755179522247
While small girls with big guns is a favorite anime subject, seeing a real small girl fire a fully automatic is just creepy.
But whatever, its not my culture.
-
@stratos said:
Now assuming those FFL licensed places are under strict control by either the goverment or some oversight commision, it isn't half as bad as i would have thought.
I agree, being educated is better than throwing out ignorant statements.@stratos said:
Now i still believe its probebly easier to get a full auto rifle under the table somewhere in the US then in a north western euro country
Really? Where did AK's come from? It would be a lot easier to get one that has been 'lost' on your side of the world than mine...
@stratos said:
But stuff like this still looks weird to me
Why? You can legally register and pay a 'tax stamp' and buy a full auto weapon in certain states. Most are vintage machine guns from world wars.
@stratos said:
seeing a real small girl fire a fully automatic is just creepy.
Seeing a little girl spend her day with her dad doing something that most people will never get to do in their lives is what I see.
I agree she is too young, and I would never agree with that, but this is a parent and it is the parent's decision. You are using one video on the internet to pass judgement on a country.
@stratos said:
But whatever, its not my culture.
Thats right, and good thing too, if you ever saw a movie like Die Hard you would likely have a heat attack and die on the spot.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@dtech said:
Yes, because calling someone a fucking retard is sooooooo much different from calling someone a coward.
Of course it is different. Morbius is calling you a country of cowards to offend you. I am calling him a retard because I have been trying to tell him he is arguing against a point no one here is making.
No, you are calling me a retard because you are too simple to actually frame an argument. You would probably get more respect from people if you grew up a little, listened more and talked less.
-
@slyadams said:
No, you are calling me a retard because you are too simple to actually frame an argument. You would probably get more respect from people if you grew up a little, listened more and talked less.
Yeah, I can really see you are doing a great job arguing your point here.
You were called a retard due to your unwillingness to keep with the argument.
-
@bstorer said:
@dtech said:
Yes, because calling someone a fucking retard is sooooooo much different from calling someone a coward.
First, I applaud your use of the elongated"so" to indicate your sarcasm. But I must disagree with your point. When morbius calls you or anyone else here a "pussy" or "coward", he's mostly basing it on your nationality and the historical failings of your country. On the other hand, when MPS calls you a retard, he is judging you based upon the intelligence (or lack thereof) that you have demonstrated. So, in short, morbius's remarks are based upon sterotypes, while MPS's are based upon snap judgments. Hope that clears things up, you retarded cowardly pussies.The historical failings of the UK? OK, time to stop arguing with someone who thinks the UK are pussies and have historically 'failed'.
-
@slyadams said:
time to stop arguing with someone who thinks the UK are pussies and have historically 'failed
Yep thats right. You have lost the stupid argument you got yourself entangled in. Turn tail and run now.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
The right to own an assulat rifle is not a right I'd want
Who is arguing FOR this?? You haven't actualy been reading any of this have you?
OK, so remind me what kinds of guns YOU think should be legal to own? It seems like if you think assaut weapons shouldn't be legal then you are drawing a line in the sand somewhere. I'm interested as to where this is and why. Why one type and not the other? The only difference would seem to be how quickly you can kill people, how reliably you can kill people and from what range you can kill people.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
you can own AK47's, M16s etc in the US with relative ease.
Really? Where are you referring to?
Assault weapons ban. Applies to most states (used to be federal). Heard of it? Regardless, there is NO ONE HERE ARGUING THIS, YOU FUCKING RETARD,
@slyadams said:
Additionally, your argument that the strict control laws make it acceptable is complete rubbish. They are rubbish because you are putting 100% faith in the system, measurement, processing and science of adjudicating who is right and proper to own a gun. And the fact is that any barrister/lawyer (in this country anyway, I happen to know many) will tell you that almost all murders are acts of passion and the murderer would almost certainly never kill again, and these people would almost certainly have passed your gun ownership tests. I wonder how many acts of domestic violence in this country would result in shootings if we lived in your free utopian paradise where John could unload his Kalashikov into Jane.
Again, we have CCW permits and legal members of society who own and use firearms here. Please provide the statistics of all these killings that occur by CCW permit holders. You sure argue like it is fact, now prove it.
Actually mate, I don't need to prove it. I'm happy with the laws in my country, you are happy with the laws in your country. Difference is, you are 4 times more likely to be shot dead tomorrow than me. I'll stay where I am. Thanks all the same. I am, however, EXTREMELY confused that you don't trust your Government to protect you, but are are confident in them to make the decisions on who is fit to own guns.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
Also, I really do think you need to modify your debating tactics. Calling people pussies, cowards and telling them they are flat wrong is a relatively weak standpoint. Pretty much every debate I've seen you involved in ends with the same behaviour.
What is it with the people in this thread? When did I call anyone a pussy or a coward? You are confusing me with morbiuswilters... jesus, learn to fucking read.
Is it possible for you to actually post a reply without personal insults? I'm guessing not, but I will continue to read, and chuckle.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
No, you are calling me a retard because you are too simple to actually frame an argument. You would probably get more respect from people if you grew up a little, listened more and talked less.
Yeah, I can really see you are doing a great job arguing your point here.
You were called a retard due to your unwillingness to keep with the argument.
Pray tell, oh purvayer of all things sooth when did I stray from the path of the debate?
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@slyadams said:
time to stop arguing with someone who thinks the UK are pussies and have historically 'failed
Yep thats right. You have lost the stupid argument you got yourself entangled in. Turn tail and run now.
Yeah, in other news, I've lost nothing mate. Keep trying though.
I notice your complete lack of a response to almost all of my actual points, and instead just respond to every message with some brain-dead insult.
