
Kiana Khansmith
Jules of Nature
will byers stan first human second
Claire Keane
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
KIROKAZE

Kaledo Art
todays bird
Cosimo Galluzzi

@theartofmadeline
wallacepolsom
No title available
noise dept.

tannertan36
hello vonnie
Xuebing Du
h
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
ojovivo
Stranger Things
seen from Germany
seen from Brazil

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Netherlands
seen from United States

seen from Argentina
seen from Argentina
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@sunflowersloveviolets
Amazing Photography by Juuso Hämäläinen
I can’t believe I actually lived though the full transition from VHS to DVD. Like there are people alive who have never seen a VHS tape….I remember when we were still tryna figure out how the fuck they got a full movie onto a cd.
Pizza is my Valentine, unless any of y'all would like to volunteer for the position. 😳 By thehayleycakes on IG
Okay, but their typography game is on point. I mean it takes a lot of practice to hand letter with a chalk or a brush. Hand lettering with a piping bag is next level.
WOW.
reblog if you remember what it felt like to walk into blockbuster
It is both a blessing and a curse to feel everything so deeply.
David Jones (via onlinecounsellingcollege)
PURE POST OP
Is it too early to start reblogging this or?
Its never too early to start reblogging this
I love how one set was not enough for him
Just a warning, I will be reblogging this every time I see it for the next week.
You don’t say.
For the record, she actually abandoned the movement BEFORE they all got whooping cough, but abandoned it too late. There’d been a breakout of measles in her area that caused her to reassess, and she and her doctor had already drafted and started a catch-up vaccination schedule, but her kids caught whooping cough just before it could be started. Then she wrote a blog post for The Scientific Parent explaining how she and her husband had come to wrong decisions in the first place, how they changed their mind, the consequences they suffered as a result, and asking other parents to please vaccinate their kids. And now she’s an activist for destroying the misinformation of anti-vaxxers, and reaching out to anti-vaxxers because she’s understands their fears but knows their kids deserve better.
She was trying to the best for her kids and just didn’t know how to interpret the validity of information or its sources, an actual skill that can be actually difficult and that is under-taught and a necessary first step to being able to trust vaccination research, so chose no action over taking an action she wasn’t sure of. She kept looking into it with family and friends and even eventually came to the right conclusion before her kids became sick, but it was still too late.
Honestly it was pretty brave of her to publicly admit she was wrong. She could have just quietly vaccinated her kids and not become a national news story, but instead she spoke out, even saying “I’m writing this from quarantine, the irony of which isn’t lost on me.” and also “I am not looking forward to any gloating or shame as this ‘defection’ from the antivaxx camp goes public, but, this isn’t a popularity contest. Right now my family is living the consequences of misinformation and fear. I understand that families in our community may be mad at us for putting their kids at risk.”
She understood the consequences and still put herself and her story out there.
You know what, it does take a big person to admit they were wrong so publicly and work to undo the harm. I believe I made fun of her in the past, but timemachineyeah changed my mind.
america is a deeply flawed society, (built on slavery, oppression, and genocide), that has always been undeniably hostile towards women and minorities; to pretend otherwise is massively ignorant, even dangerous.
Name one right that women and minorities do not have in America. I’ll wait.
Move to Tehran and tell me America treats women badly.
Tell me how badly women have it in the states after one weekend in Somalia
It’s such a terrible shame @lipstickandleeches was picked up by the secret police for criticizing America as a mere woman. Oh, wait, we’re not some socialist shithole. The worst she can expect is rational people pointing out her idiocy on the internet.
Here's the God's honest truth ugly people don't get to be happy. ugly people don't deserve to be happy.
Alright this may seem v radical but I am all for complete gun control. The removal of ALL guns from the hands of the public. Private citizens do not need them. I just don’t see a reason for any person living their normal life to own a gun or ANY kind. I mean I guess (????) For hunting during designated seasons but even that is really unnecessary. I’ve known people killed in drive by shootings and people with personal experience being threatened with guns. My stepfather and mother used to argue about guns he had for hunting and because their domestic situation was HELLA abusive I grew up completely terrified that my stepdad would just up and decide to kill her or any of us one day. Guns have no place in anyone’s hands. White men and veterans in NRA t-shirts come into my job all the time and I don’t feel safe despite the “Responsible gun-owner” concealed carry slogans they wear proudly. I feel afraid. I get shaky and terrified any time I spot one because that shit makes me feel threatened not protected. Guns are so fucking unnecessary and I wish people were less fucking stupid about how much they “need” them. The right to bear arms is bullshit in modern society, sorry not sorry. If I could I would personally remove the guns from every person in the country and ban all gun sales forever.
If people refused to hand over their firearms to such a confiscation effort, would you be willing to kill them?
This is gonna be good…..
Originally posted by fandom-breaking
What a stupid, stupid question. Of course not.
I don’t know that it is a stupid question though, if total gun-control were implemented this goes one of two ways. Either people give them up willingly or they fight. I’m not a big fan of guns myself, never had one. but I also don’t believe the state should have a monopoly on force.
Well clearly there’s no real, feasible and civil way to remove guns in one fell swoop and certainly there would be resistance and a good chance for violence. Despite what people may argue about protection, guns are a vehicle of violence and any effort to remove them would be inherently dangerous because people get upset and make rash, vicious decisions based on their principles. But there’s a huge grey area between giving up on gun control and killing people to take their guns. That’s the thing people violently opposed to gun control seem to fundamentally misunderstand. Just like there are numerous ways to protect yourself and your family (some of them without guns, wow imagine it), there are a lot of ways to deal with people who break rules that don’t involve immediate violence and even if it did come to violence in this hypothetical scenario, there are ways to show force without intentionally harming people who disagree with you. Killing anyone is so far off the point of my offhand imaginary scenario though that to me it was immediately a ridiculous response.
How would you enforce a total ban on firearms without threat of force?
There would be a threat of legal action which in theory would be enough for some but for those who are stubborn enough to go out and flaunt firearms after that then who’s to say there would be no threat of force? There are just ways to demonstrate force that don’t involve shooting and/or killing people. But if the armed party immediately resorts to pulling out their guns on authorities then obviously there will be increased force. No one is saying there would be no force but like… killing people is so extreme. That’s what they’d be trying to prevent so like unless there was an absolute immediate and mortal threat then like obviously do not kill someone to take their guns. Of course with the current trigger-happy police force there would be issues but I’m not even discussing this entirely realistically. Obviously as a 20 year old female of limited physical strength or political power I won’t be personally knocking on doors and taking guns away from people but in the event that this did happen I absolutely would not advocate for the killing of stubborn gun owners.
Let me explain.
If I exist, and I own myself, and I own my actions (which I’d argue makes sense) I own what I produce.
If I trade what I produce for something else, I own what I traded it for. (Again, this is basic stuff, but if you disagree, please feel free to note why)
If someone, anyone, be that a person, or a government official, or God almighty (if you believe in such) were to come down and say “Give that to me;”
I could refuse.
So, this person must use force. they must initiate force and use a threat of harm to take it away from me.
This harm can be prison, can be fines, it can be shooting my dog, it can be poisoning my water supply (I’ve had someone threaten this to me before on here, silly example, but hey); but they must initiate the threat to get what they want.
If I refuse, and try to stop them, I’d argue I’m not in the wrong; especially if I committed no harm and had no desire to commit harm to another.
This means the escalation of force and the resultant violence is wholly predicated on the person acting.
What this means is, you, yourself, by advocating for such measures, must be willing to follow the end contingency. You, yourself, must be willing to be morally responsible for the deaths of what could possibly amount to over 100 million people (that’s how many gun owners are in the US right now) if every one of them refused, and fought back.
A more likely number would be about 10% of them, or around 10 million people, myself included.
The legislation you are enacting requires you to be ok with using force to imprison me, hurt me, or even kill me, and possibly people I care about.
If you are unwilling to do so yourself, then I’d argue you shouldn’t advocate such measures by proxy.
If the thing you produce and own or trade for becomes illegal, then any action you take in refusing to give up this illegal item does put you in the wrong. If you were talking about heroin, it would be the same. You are not allowed to produce or trade for heroin legally. To refuse to give up your heroin would be an illegal action and therefore you are the one instigating the action against the authorities and the law. That puts the responsibility for any escalation, once again, firmly into your hands.
The thing is, I don’t consider drugs prohibition to be all that positive.
But this hits upon an interesting question.
If something is illegal, is it inherently morally wrong, and is it acceptable for the state to use force to threaten, harm or kill those who refuse t comply, or who go out of their way to break the law?
Does legal prohibition equate to a moral code? At one point in this country, slavery was legal. Civil rights activists in the ‘60s had to willingly and implicitly break laws in order to further their agenda. If we’re equating legal processes with societal morality, then are we to presume that “the responsibility for any escalation” in the hands of civil rights activists? If I really wanted to be a dick, I could phrase it as something like “Are you saying civil rights activists were responsible for firehoses and dogs being set on them”, but that feels like a logical fallacy somewhere, an appeal to emotion or something.
But civil rights activists were fighting to exist as human beings and not to own something that would make it easier for them to kill people. That is absolutely a logical fallacy and I’m glad you caught yourself before you let that idiocy tumble across my screen.
Yes, but in the minds of many gun-owners, they are fighting for the ability to defend that same existence. It is an equivalent (or near equivalent) issue of rights and existence. They (and I) believe that they have a right to take the defense of their own existence as human beings into their own hands, and you are asking them to give that ability up and to rely on government organizations.
Edit: Additionally, you’re now creating a line in the sand. At what point is morality determined by law, and at what point is it determined by other factors? Who gets to determine that line? What agency gets to decided “This law is immoral, and resisting it is just, but that law is moral, and resisting it is unjust.”?
If you want to defend yourself I’m not saying you cannot. But living and existing are not the same as living and existing with a gun you are prepared to turn on another person, no matter what equivalency you try to make.
Yet you deem it acceptable to turn a gun onto others.
You cannot enforce a ban without violence.
You’ve already stated you desire to enforce a ban.
That means you are ok with telling others to either give up their right to defend themselves or risk being killed.
Please, if there is something I am missing here, explain it to me.
Lets say I own a gun. Such a right to own this particular property is guaranteed by a constitutional amendment and is seen as vital for being a free man.
I own a gun but (to paraphrase Thomas More), I do none harm, I say none harm, and I think none harm. If these not be sufficient to keep a man safe and secure from the depredations of an overzealous government then I know many, including myself who would prefer to die fighting that government than live deprived of rights.
Oppressing the populace is hardly radical. Monarchs, Dictators and Emperors have done it for millennia. Self defense should be a human right/
This post is gross and controlling
I am so ugly people from my own race won't even fuck me.