Thinking Man's Transfer Station

"Here's why that's dumb..."

[catchymemes]

[rightsmarts]

BREAKING: Maxine Waters calls for attacks on Trump administration: “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

[sweet--rose]

The tolerant left.

[in-all-conscience-deactivated20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

So by that flawed and circular logic, we shouldn't tolerate you being intolerant of the cabinet members' intolerance. Gee, I love how much sense this makes.

[rightsmarts]

Obama DHS Sec. Jeh Johnson: I Freely Admit We Detained Children, “It Was Necessary”

[in-all-conscience-deactivated20]

Briefly, and we didn’t separate them from family members en masse.

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

Because the ninth circuit court of appeals ruled it unconstitutional to keep the children with the parents if they are caught crossing the border illegally. Would you rather have children held in prison with family members or separated and held in different facilities? By the way, there's an easy fix to this situation: if you want to cross the border with your children, do it legally.

[citizenshipandsocialjustice]

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

As was the first amendment. Your point is moot.

[fuzzballsheltiepants]

My husband was talking about the controversy in the US right now about arming teachers with guns because of our ridiculous national streak of school shootings.  There is rhetoric that is often expounded that “teachers will become fighters if armed during attacks.”  His response was, “If you put boxing gloves on me and stick me in the ring with a prize fighter, I’m not going to become a boxer.  I’m just going to be a dead guy wearing boxing gloves.” 

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

So he's saying that school shooters are the combat equivalents of boxing prize fighters? Doesn't make sense to me.

[jiluan-deactivated20171207]

man if I had a sword I wouldn’t be worried about shit

[gothgays]

I have some good news for you

[jiluan-deactivated20171207]

what is it

[gothgays]

A horse’s teeth take up more space in their head than their brain

[jiluan-deactivated20171207]

awwsome I don’t like horses

[jiluan-deactivated20171207]

i am terrified

[mitochondiva]

u kno what i bet you wish you had a sword right about now huh

[lxxmiere]

it astounds me that every time there is a mass shooting in America, politicians insist that had the victims been armed, they’d be still be alive, when the main problem is how accessible these weapons are. You don’t need guns from protection, you need protection from the guns.

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

Hmm. What could possibly protect you from guns? Maaaaybe having a gun yourself and being trained to use it is the best way to preclude yourself from being victimized by gun violence. Just maybe.

[dotjiffylube-deactivated2018110]

periods are disgusting because its vaguely congealed, mucousy blood coming from your genitals. it has fuckin nothing do with you being a goddamn woman. if a mans dick was leaking mucousy, slightly congealed blood, people would think its just as gross.

not fucking everything has to do with fucking misogyny.

[respectthefemalebody]

Rebranding wearing makeup as “self care” only reinforces the patriarchal idea that women who reject the beauty industry aren’t taking care of ourselves. It’s sexist rhetoric.

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

Holy shit how about just let people do what they want as long as it isn't hurting others.

[not-safe-for-democracy]

via IG:bitches.of.karma

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

Lol. Possibly the most ill-informed gun control post I've seen on here. My AR-15 is for target shooting. I may actually purchase a federally compliant short stack 5 round magazine so that I can use it for deer hunting next year. I'm not sure why you left semi-automatic handguns off the list, seeing as they kill more people every year than long rifles and shotguns combined. Do some learning, rethink your view of self defense and the right to self sovereignty, and try again.

[correctionslife-deactivated2021]

Dana Loesch is savage as fuck.

[aspiringwarriorlibrarian]

A “GOOD GUY WITH A GUN” DID NOT STOP THIS. A “GOOD GUY WITH A GUN” WAS THERE, EVERYTHING WENT RIGHT FOR ONCE RATHER THAN HIM BEING UNABLE TO ACT OR MISTAKEN FOR A SECOND SHOOTER AS HAPPENS IN MOST SHOOTINGS, AND IT WAS STILL THE FIFTH WORST MASS SHOOTING IN MODERN AMERICAN HISTORY.

A “GOOD GUY WITH A GUN” IS NOT ENOUGH.

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

A good guy with a gun most certainly did stop this. In all likelihood the shooter was going to continue his rampage until a good guy with a gun stopped it. Whether the good guy is a police officer or a civilian is irrelevant.

[aspiringwarriorlibrarian]

26 people are dead, including children, and you’re expecting me to cheer because it wasn’t 27? It was still the fifth worst mass shooting in Modern America. The good guy with a gun didn’t stop that, ergo a good guy with a gun is not enough to stop mass shootings.

And yes, it is relevant whether it’s a police officer or a civilian. Civilians are not trained for combat. Civilians will not respond correctly to a threat. In Vegas, the people who were armed were unable to use their firearms for fear of being mistaken for a shooter. In Colorado, the people were armed and panicked, and it was only sheer dumb luck that they didn’t stumble across and kill each other, and again, it did nothing to stop the violence. In that sort of stressful situation, you can’t aim accurately, most people probably freeze up in fear, and you can’t distinguish the “bad guy with a gun” from a “good guy with a gun”. This was a rare event, a lucky event, where an outside agitator was able to identify and retaliate against the correct man. Had someone in that church been armed and he’d seen that, the good guy with a gun could have just added more bodies to the pile.

We need something better, and we’ll start with why a guy who cracked his son’s skull was allowed access to a semiautomatic. It seems like every other day another man scorned kills the woman they hate and whoever gets in their way, and this time it was literal dozens that got between him and his ex’s relatives.

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

He was allowed to purchase a firearm because there was a pretty stupid error in our bloated, inefficient government, so his background check was faulty. I agree that’s an issue that is completely necessary to address. And I agree that most gun owners are shamefully ill prepared to respond to an active shooter scenario. This is why we need organizations like the NRA to train people on how to react. We need better gun education and a higher respect and understand for what it means to be a responsible gun owner. If we can’t agree on that, I’m not certain we will be able to agree on anything relating to gun control.

[aspiringwarriorlibrarian]

Exactly. We need better background checks to ensure that domestic abusers do not get guns, and place a limit on how dangerous civilian guns are allowed to be. The weapons used, particularly AR-15s, in these shootings are far more lethal than anything a civilian would need for hunting or self-defense.

I do not, however, trust the NRA to be responsible regarding gun education due to their past actions, most notably blocking the CDC from researching gun violence after they published a paper showing that having a gun in your home was more likely to get you killed than not having one. That’s a particularly dangerous form of willful ignorance to me. I’d much prefer preventing these shootings before they happen, something proven to keep me safe by other countries, than place my safety in a “good guy with a gun” scenario that has never been conclusively proven to prevent a shooting.

Other countries have gun owners and no shootings, so there’s clearly a compromise available that keeps everyone safe. The problem is it’s become such a binary issue that people assume any attempt at responsible gun legislation will take their guns away. Congress won’t even pass legislation regarding better background checks.

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

Well the issue then becomes what a better background check would look like. The issue wasn’t the background check itself, it’s that the information wasn’t provided to the FBI for them to have it on file for the background check. It’s an issue of government incompetence in this case. I do think private sales should require a background check. I’m not a full supporter of the NRA by any means. They’ve done some shady shit, but I think their outreach and educational programs have been a broad success in spreading awareness and providing the knowledge and training to responsible gun owners. I disagree with your point about AR-15s and other “assault weapons.” I own an AR primarily for target shooting, marksmanship competitions, and fun. Hunting and self defense are far from the only reasons to own a gun. It’s like saying you don’t need a corvette for business travel or roadtrips. It’s just an inapplicable statement.

[aspiringwarriorlibrarian]

Well that’s the point isn’t it? Marksmanship and fun isn’t a good enough reason to risk them falling into the hands of dangerous people. You can do the same with a shot gun but you can’t injure 500 people with it. Cost/benefits doesn’t shake out.

And yeah, general streamlining of background checks overall. My main issue is that the government doesn’t actually do anything when this happens thanks to the gun lobby.

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

Let's try to dig to the principle we're disagreeing on. By the way, thanks for being intelligent and civil. I genuinely appreciate it and am open to having my mind changed.

I believe that the right to keep and bear arms extends to any use of those arms that does not endanger the safety, livelihood, or property of anyone affected by that use. This is a flawed analogy, but stick with me; since trucks are now a popular choice of weapon for terrorist attacks, and vehicles on the whole kill more people than guns every year by a landslide, would you say that some vehicles are too dangerous for the general public to possess? Excluding military vehicles of course. My point is that the item itself is not the issue. It's the education and intent of the user coupled with the capability of the hardware. This is why you need a class III FFL to purchase an automatic weapon.

[aspiringwarriorlibrarian]

A “GOOD GUY WITH A GUN” DID NOT STOP THIS. A “GOOD GUY WITH A GUN” WAS THERE, EVERYTHING WENT RIGHT FOR ONCE RATHER THAN HIM BEING UNABLE TO ACT OR MISTAKEN FOR A SECOND SHOOTER AS HAPPENS IN MOST SHOOTINGS, AND IT WAS STILL THE FIFTH WORST MASS SHOOTING IN MODERN AMERICAN HISTORY.

A “GOOD GUY WITH A GUN” IS NOT ENOUGH.

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

A good guy with a gun most certainly did stop this. In all likelihood the shooter was going to continue his rampage until a good guy with a gun stopped it. Whether the good guy is a police officer or a civilian is irrelevant.

[aspiringwarriorlibrarian]

26 people are dead, including children, and you’re expecting me to cheer because it wasn’t 27? It was still the fifth worst mass shooting in Modern America. The good guy with a gun didn’t stop that, ergo a good guy with a gun is not enough to stop mass shootings.

And yes, it is relevant whether it’s a police officer or a civilian. Civilians are not trained for combat. Civilians will not respond correctly to a threat. In Vegas, the people who were armed were unable to use their firearms for fear of being mistaken for a shooter. In Colorado, the people were armed and panicked, and it was only sheer dumb luck that they didn’t stumble across and kill each other, and again, it did nothing to stop the violence. In that sort of stressful situation, you can’t aim accurately, most people probably freeze up in fear, and you can’t distinguish the “bad guy with a gun” from a “good guy with a gun”. This was a rare event, a lucky event, where an outside agitator was able to identify and retaliate against the correct man. Had someone in that church been armed and he’d seen that, the good guy with a gun could have just added more bodies to the pile.

We need something better, and we’ll start with why a guy who cracked his son’s skull was allowed access to a semiautomatic. It seems like every other day another man scorned kills the woman they hate and whoever gets in their way, and this time it was literal dozens that got between him and his ex’s relatives.

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

He was allowed to purchase a firearm because there was a pretty stupid error in our bloated, inefficient government, so his background check was faulty. I agree that’s an issue that is completely necessary to address. And I agree that most gun owners are shamefully ill prepared to respond to an active shooter scenario. This is why we need organizations like the NRA to train people on how to react. We need better gun education and a higher respect and understand for what it means to be a responsible gun owner. If we can’t agree on that, I’m not certain we will be able to agree on anything relating to gun control.

[aspiringwarriorlibrarian]

Exactly. We need better background checks to ensure that domestic abusers do not get guns, and place a limit on how dangerous civilian guns are allowed to be. The weapons used, particularly AR-15s, in these shootings are far more lethal than anything a civilian would need for hunting or self-defense.

I do not, however, trust the NRA to be responsible regarding gun education due to their past actions, most notably blocking the CDC from researching gun violence after they published a paper showing that having a gun in your home was more likely to get you killed than not having one. That’s a particularly dangerous form of willful ignorance to me. I’d much prefer preventing these shootings before they happen, something proven to keep me safe by other countries, than place my safety in a “good guy with a gun” scenario that has never been conclusively proven to prevent a shooting.

Other countries have gun owners and no shootings, so there’s clearly a compromise available that keeps everyone safe. The problem is it’s become such a binary issue that people assume any attempt at responsible gun legislation will take their guns away. Congress won’t even pass legislation regarding better background checks.

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

Well the issue then becomes what a better background check would look like. The issue wasn't the background check itself, it's that the information wasn't provided to the FBI for them to have it on file for the background check. It's an issue of government incompetence in this case. I do think private sales should require a background check. I'm not a full supporter of the NRA by any means. They've done some shady shit, but I think their outreach and educational programs have been a broad success in spreading awareness and providing the knowledge and training to responsible gun owners. I disagree with your point about AR-15s and other "assault weapons." I own an AR primarily for target shooting, marksmanship competitions, and fun. Hunting and self defense are far from the only reasons to own a gun. It's like saying you don't need a corvette for business travel or roadtrips. It's just an inapplicable statement.

[aspiringwarriorlibrarian]

A “GOOD GUY WITH A GUN” DID NOT STOP THIS. A “GOOD GUY WITH A GUN” WAS THERE, EVERYTHING WENT RIGHT FOR ONCE RATHER THAN HIM BEING UNABLE TO ACT OR MISTAKEN FOR A SECOND SHOOTER AS HAPPENS IN MOST SHOOTINGS, AND IT WAS STILL THE FIFTH WORST MASS SHOOTING IN MODERN AMERICAN HISTORY.

A “GOOD GUY WITH A GUN” IS NOT ENOUGH.

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

A good guy with a gun most certainly did stop this. In all likelihood the shooter was going to continue his rampage until a good guy with a gun stopped it. Whether the good guy is a police officer or a civilian is irrelevant.

[aspiringwarriorlibrarian]

26 people are dead, including children, and you’re expecting me to cheer because it wasn’t 27? It was still the fifth worst mass shooting in Modern America. The good guy with a gun didn’t stop that, ergo a good guy with a gun is not enough to stop mass shootings.

And yes, it is relevant whether it’s a police officer or a civilian. Civilians are not trained for combat. Civilians will not respond correctly to a threat. In Vegas, the people who were armed were unable to use their firearms for fear of being mistaken for a shooter. In Colorado, the people were armed and panicked, and it was only sheer dumb luck that they didn’t stumble across and kill each other, and again, it did nothing to stop the violence. In that sort of stressful situation, you can’t aim accurately, most people probably freeze up in fear, and you can’t distinguish the “bad guy with a gun” from a “good guy with a gun”. This was a rare event, a lucky event, where an outside agitator was able to identify and retaliate against the correct man. Had someone in that church been armed and he’d seen that, the good guy with a gun could have just added more bodies to the pile.

We need something better, and we’ll start with why a guy who cracked his son’s skull was allowed access to a semiautomatic. It seems like every other day another man scorned kills the woman they hate and whoever gets in their way, and this time it was literal dozens that got between him and his ex’s relatives.

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

He was allowed to purchase a firearm because there was a pretty stupid error in our bloated, inefficient government, so his background check was faulty. I agree that's an issue that is completely necessary to address. And I agree that most gun owners are shamefully ill prepared to respond to an active shooter scenario. This is why we need organizations like the NRA to train people on how to react. We need better gun education and a higher respect and understand for what it means to be a responsible gun owner. If we can't agree on that, I'm not certain we will be able to agree on anything relating to gun control.

[bulbiedorf]

So honestly like. I refuse to own any lethal weapons because I believe the only way to change the murder rate in this country is if people actually decide that they shouldn’t have the power to instantly end someone’s life on command. I don’t care if I’m being attacked I will make do with nonlethal weapons. I don’t think I should ever have the ability to end someone else’s life.

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

That’s dumb. If someone attacks you with lethal force, they have lost their right to life.

[bulbiedorf]

Why is that my choice to make. I’m not the judge, jury, and executioner. Dude its MY CHOICE. If you think it’s ridiculous that’s because you are so close minded that you refuse to think for one second that other people could have different and very valid viewpoints than your own.

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

It’s your choice to make because it’s your life or the life of someone close to you being threatened. A violation of the sanctity of life is grounds for meeting that violation with deadly force in a self defense scenario. And I didn’t say it was ridiculous; I said it was dumb. Your viewpoint is equally valid to mine. I’m just saying that it’s dumb to preclude a more effective form of self defense when it is readily available.

[bulbiedorf]

I rephrased it as ridiculous due to the fact many people find that word to be ableist. Now back to the point. I’m going to self defend. I’m going to have nonlethal means. Why? Because I care more about people being alive and getting care and justice than my own life. I don’t care why the hell they killed me. I don’t care if you think I should have used a gun. I’m not going to use lethal force. I don’t care if I can. I’m not because it goes against my basic morals. If you can’t understand that then you were too close minded to even process it in the first place.

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

Lol look kid, I already said your stance is valid. But it’s also very dumb in my opinion. I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m not saying that thinking otherwise is incorrect. I’m saying I think you have a dumb view on self defense. Valuing the life of someone who violated your right to exist is dumb.

This is what my blog is nowadays. I don’t argue with people that much because nobody is open to changing their mind. I point out dumb things and explain why they’re dumb. If you wish to continue your very dumb approach to self defense, be my guest. But it’s very dumb to do so.

[bulbiedorf]

“I don’t disrespect people” *blatantly and repeatedly disrespects another person’s beliefs purely because they believe they are somehow smarter for liking guns*

Sidenote: I’ve found people who resort to childish insults are often doing it because they are trying to make themselves feel good about themselves by attempting to hurt others

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

You're more than welcome to think that. Also, I don't disrespect people. I disrespect their bad ideas. Notice that I don't say "you're dumb." I say "that's dumb." I'm talking about an idea you espouse, not you as a person. For all I know you're the most intelligent, kind hearted person in the world. But this idea you hold is dumb.

[bulbiedorf]

So honestly like. I refuse to own any lethal weapons because I believe the only way to change the murder rate in this country is if people actually decide that they shouldn’t have the power to instantly end someone’s life on command. I don’t care if I’m being attacked I will make do with nonlethal weapons. I don’t think I should ever have the ability to end someone else’s life.

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

That’s dumb. If someone attacks you with lethal force, they have lost their right to life.

[bulbiedorf]

Why is that my choice to make. I’m not the judge, jury, and executioner. Dude its MY CHOICE. If you think it’s ridiculous that’s because you are so close minded that you refuse to think for one second that other people could have different and very valid viewpoints than your own.

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

It’s your choice to make because it’s your life or the life of someone close to you being threatened. A violation of the sanctity of life is grounds for meeting that violation with deadly force in a self defense scenario. And I didn’t say it was ridiculous; I said it was dumb. Your viewpoint is equally valid to mine. I’m just saying that it’s dumb to preclude a more effective form of self defense when it is readily available.

[bulbiedorf]

I rephrased it as ridiculous due to the fact many people find that word to be ableist. Now back to the point. I’m going to self defend. I’m going to have nonlethal means. Why? Because I care more about people being alive and getting care and justice than my own life. I don’t care why the hell they killed me. I don’t care if you think I should have used a gun. I’m not going to use lethal force. I don’t care if I can. I’m not because it goes against my basic morals. If you can’t understand that then you were too close minded to even process it in the first place.

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

Lol look kid, I already said your stance is valid. But it's also very dumb in my opinion. I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm not saying that thinking otherwise is incorrect. I'm saying I think you have a dumb view on self defense. Valuing the life of someone who violated your right to exist is dumb.

This is what my blog is nowadays. I don't argue with people that much because nobody is open to changing their mind. I point out dumb things and explain why they're dumb. If you wish to continue your very dumb approach to self defense, be my guest. But it's very dumb to do so.

[bulbiedorf]

So honestly like. I refuse to own any lethal weapons because I believe the only way to change the murder rate in this country is if people actually decide that they shouldn’t have the power to instantly end someone’s life on command. I don’t care if I’m being attacked I will make do with nonlethal weapons. I don’t think I should ever have the ability to end someone else’s life.

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

That’s dumb. If someone attacks you with lethal force, they have lost their right to life.

[bulbiedorf]

Why is that my choice to make. I’m not the judge, jury, and executioner. Dude its MY CHOICE. If you think it’s ridiculous that’s because you are so close minded that you refuse to think for one second that other people could have different and very valid viewpoints than your own.

[sarcastic-mister-knowitall]

It's your choice to make because it's your life or the life of someone close to you being threatened. A violation of the sanctity of life is grounds for meeting that violation with deadly force in a self defense scenario. And I didn't say it was ridiculous; I said it was dumb. Your viewpoint is equally valid to mine. I'm just saying that it's dumb to preclude a more effective form of self defense when it is readily available.