Well, I think we can safely say that we're going in circles here, and in a manner not terribly pertinent to the thread topic. I've said my piece, and I'll leave it at that.Admiral X wrote:The Romulan Republic wrote:"All progressives are actually regressives. How dare they complain about us engaging in collective guilt while they all engage in collective guilt. They're all the same, treating us like we're all the same!"Admiral X wrote:I call regressives regressive because that's what they are. The term applies to authoritarian busy-bodies on both the left and the right. The funny part of responses like yours, though, is that you both simultaneously complain about painting people with a broad brush while simultaneously doing the same yourself, which was actually exactly what I was getting at with my post. I really do find it hilarious that while members of the regressive left will stick up for groups because they consider them to be the underdog, and even though they're absolutely right that the concept of collective guilt is wrong, they then engage in it themselves against groups that they consider to be acceptable targets.
Man, your post is an Orwellian... well, masterpiece would probably be too strong a word.How dare I point out that regressives are actually regressive, or that you're doing exactly the same thing you're bitching about someone else allegedly doing.
Right. I don't think its okay to grope a woman without her consent, so of course I must just be a loser who can't get laid.Robovski wrote:Have you ever dated a woman? Have you ever tried to make a first move? Because after reading that I would say not.
Interesting choice of ad hominem.
Incidentally, what do you mean by "make the first move"? I have no problem with a man asking out a woman, or asking if she wants to have sex, or whatever, as long as its in an appropriate context (someone he knows, for example, as opposed to just hitting on a random stranger). I never said otherwise. I probably would hesitate to do so myself, but that's more social anxiety than moral opposition.
But just grabbing a woman without her permission? That's sexual harassment/assault.
Its about a lot of things.That aside guns are tools, they can be used improperly or correctly, legally or illegally. Just like a truck or van, which can be used to move your granny and your basement apartment or drive over people in the street. But hey, it's not like there aren't heavily armed societies full of guns we can point to that hardly have gun deaths. Oh wait! There are! And look, societies that banned guns that kill each other with knives instead! It is almost like people will kill each other if they want to with the means available to them if they want to kill people but states with nationalized health and access to mental health care and a high standard of living seem to not want to kill each other as much as say here in the USA where mental illness is stigmitized and not readily available, especially to the poor who can't afford therapy or perscriptions. Ever since Reagan closed the sanitariums the mentally ill poor are in the streets and essentially untreated until they become emergencies, whence they get cleaned up and sent back on out and then run out of meds again. No long-term care or solutions, just band aids at best but nooo it's about toxic masculinity.
Its about gun control.
Its about toxic masculinity.
Its about mental illness.
Its about poverty and the lack of a decent social safety net.
Its about a culture which glorifies political violence and the lone vigilante with a gun as hero.
And probably some other things as well.
Anyone trying to pin it down to just one factor either has some serious tunnel-vision, or is disingenuously peddling an agenda. At the same time, every aspect of the issue is a legitimate one to discuss taking action on.
You sound like Jack Thompson.
