4 ms·

What are you even talking about? Stop with the point scoring and be clear in your words.

jonathankoren 3y ago
I'm literally saying that people dying of preventable deaths is seen as an acceptable price for society to pay so that a tiny few aren't inconvenienced or have their feelings hurt. If this idea sounds radical and needlessly trolling to you, it should. But this is not some sort of straw man. It is literally a popular position in contemporary American politics among those on the right. [1] For seatbelts we had on one side of the ledger preventable deaths, injuries, and if we're being callous, the economic drain that results from that. We also knew from looking at other countries that had these problems, that seatbelt laws massively reduce those negatives. On the other side we had, "But I don't wanna." When it comes to mass shootings in America, we've had 427 as of yesterday, the 218th day of 2023.[0] That's almost two a day. The United States is literally the only country where this happens. We know the solutions. We can look at how Australia reacted when they had a kindergarten murdered in 1996, and how they haven't had a similar instance since. When America had a kindergarten murdered in a similar way, the government shrugged it off, and even talking about reform was shouted down, because of "freedom". That's what I'm talking about. So if putting it out in such straightforward terms makes you uncomfortable, it should, because it's literally people dying and a majority of Americans wanting the dying to stop, versus a small number saying, "I don't care. I don't wanna. Your dead kid is the price I'm willing to pay to keep my hobby." [0] https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting [1] https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-half-gop-accept-mass-shootings-part-free-society-poll-1712960 https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-half-gop-accept-mass-shootin...
- Defletter 3y ago
  Yeah, I don't think you realise to the degree that your point-scory comments seem to imply that you're anti-seatbelt and pro teachers with guns. It's not uncommon for anti-seatbelters to argue that seatbelts cause injuries and deaths of their own. And thanking shooting victims for their service is exactly the kind of spiteful rhetoric Republicans say in gun control discussions. You can think me uncomfortable, but I'm not. Now that you're actually being clear in your words, I can state that we're in agreement. I'd tone down the attitude though.
  - jonathankoren 3y ago
    You're lack of understanding obvious sarcasm is a personal problem on your part, not mine.
    - Defletter 3y ago
      Sweetheart, of course it's obvious to you. Of the two people that responded to you, neither knew what you were talking about. If you don't wish to heed anyone's advice, that's on you. Byyyeee.

I'm literally saying that people dying of preventable deaths is seen as an acceptable price for society to pay so that a tiny few aren't inconvenienced or have their feelings hurt. If this idea sounds radical and needlessly trolling to you, it should. But this is not some sort of straw man. It is literally a popular position in contemporary American politics among those on the right. [1] For seatbelts we had on one side of the ledger preventable deaths, injuries, and if we're being callous, the economic drain that results from that. We also knew from looking at other countries that had these problems, that seatbelt laws massively reduce those negatives. On the other side we had, "But I don't wanna." When it comes to mass shootings in America, we've had 427 as of yesterday, the 218th day of 2023.[0] That's almost two a day. The United States is literally the only country where this happens. We know the solutions. We can look at how Australia reacted when they had a kindergarten murdered in 1996, and how they haven't had a similar instance since. When America had a kindergarten murdered in a similar way, the government shrugged it off, and even talking about reform was shouted down, because of "freedom". That's what I'm talking about. So if putting it out in such straightforward terms makes you uncomfortable, it should, because it's literally people dying and a majority of Americans wanting the dying to stop, versus a small number saying, "I don't care. I don't wanna. Your dead kid is the price I'm willing to pay to keep my hobby." [0] https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting [1] https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-half-gop-accept-mass-shootings-part-free-society-poll-1712960 https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-half-gop-accept-mass-shootin...

Defletter 3y ago
Yeah, I don't think you realise to the degree that your point-scory comments seem to imply that you're anti-seatbelt and pro teachers with guns. It's not uncommon for anti-seatbelters to argue that seatbelts cause injuries and deaths of their own. And thanking shooting victims for their service is exactly the kind of spiteful rhetoric Republicans say in gun control discussions. You can think me uncomfortable, but I'm not. Now that you're actually being clear in your words, I can state that we're in agreement. I'd tone down the attitude though.
- jonathankoren 3y ago
  You're lack of understanding obvious sarcasm is a personal problem on your part, not mine.
  - Defletter 3y ago
    Sweetheart, of course it's obvious to you. Of the two people that responded to you, neither knew what you were talking about. If you don't wish to heed anyone's advice, that's on you. Byyyeee.