LogFAQs > #925772206

foolm0r0n posted...

you can't say this

yes I can. as much as you like to act like an expert on things you have no way of being certain about, it's definitely not your purview to claim what ideas are or aren't in my head. you're not the gatekeeper for what I'm allowed to say I hate.

I make practical decisions based on evidence and observations of the world. that's realism. I'm not your typical blind board 8 idealist who states "this is how the world SHOULD BE" and bases all of my behavior on some arbitrary idea of fairness.

just because I can accept the fact that I live in a system that I hate doesn't mean that I don't hate it.

foolm0r0n posted...

the most propagandist idea ever created in the US, that there are tons of invaders trying to infiltrate us.

um, what? are you just in denial or something? this is happening all over the world between basically every country in existence. if you think there is NO other world power that is trying to subvert or infiltrate the US then I don't even know what to say. we're doing it to dozens of countries the world over and at the very least china and russia are very interested in meddling with our affairs.

right now we have a strong military. the idea of direct interference is very unappealing. your plan is to disarm our military for... some reason, you're not making it entirely clear, especially with your most recent post. and then.... I don't know. suddenly the idea of using force to manipulate the US becomes more appealing.

a weaker military = increased chances of other nations using force to manipulate us.

if you can't see that you're just flat out wrong.

foolm0r0n posted...

I get that you're playing a character right now but it's a bit too ridiculous to seriously engage with.

I have no idea what makes you say this. I have a pretty well established history of defending gun ownership and personal freedoms of US citizens, largely because I happen to be a citizen of the US.

hell, you're the one who just failed to respond to almost any of the points I made (except for one).

instead you accused me of "playing a role," but then went on a long rant about how... I don't know... disarming the military is good for the economy? which has nothing to do with your original point that supposedly disarming the military will somehow solve the "culture of gun violence." something you failed to even establish that it exists.

honestly I respect your hustle. this topic is pretty hilarious. you got a bunch of far left gun grabbers to somehow agree to letting the population keep a massive personal gun collection almost immediately after a mass shooting -- largely by typing a bunch of stuff too smart for them to understand or engage with. they literally just started nodding their heads and going "uh yeah this is a good idea" despite not understanding what you were even saying, because, well, none of them wanted to be the person to admit they didn't understand.

I guess the problem here is that you're mistaking me for a libertarian or something. you think if you completely switch your message to an economic one, and throw in some libertarian buzz words, that I'll agree with you as well because you "sound smart."

insulting me and then changing the subject does nothing to answer my original criticisms:

there is no clearly defined purpose for any of the suggestions that you made, and they include largely ineffective measures that would show little success at even accomplishing what they set out to do.
---

Reality seems very harsh
https://imgur.com/3a03avz