Florida Hero Aaron Feis Was Disarmed By Government Rules

Submitted by: 5cats 11 months ago in News & Politics


Aaron Feis has been in the MSM news a lot, mostly as him being a teacher and a coach, but they're overlooking the fact that he was on duty as a security officer that day. Yes, he worked as a security guard at the school. Feis is likely the man who confronted the shooter very early in the rampage, and he gave his life trying to protect the children from harm.

In this brief and thoughtful article, Patrick Jakeway from American Thinker looks at how different things might have been if Aaron had been allowed to carry a sidearm. Many other potential massacres have been stopped 'by a good guy with a gun' and it is clear that a good guy without a gun is just another victim.

But we can't have a 'rational debate' about guns with the liberals since all they do is tell lies.

In newspapers, on TV and even politicians in their speeches: the gun-grabbers have no place for the truth. Facts do not interest them at all. Only emotions and their end goal motivate them: total confiscation.

An AR-15 is not a 'military weapon' at all, it just looks like one. So do dozens of other guns. It is not an 'assault rifle' it is just the same as dozens of other 'less scary' rifles. There is nothing it does that nearly every rifle like it out there can also do except it 'looks scary' and that's why the gun-grabbers focus on it with 'laser-like intensity'. The vast majority of murders or suicides in the USA are not done with rifles at all, those account for about 2% and that's ALL sorts of rifles, not just the AR-15.

Hundreds of thousands of AR-15 owners never once break the laws with their guns, but they should all be confiscated because some criminal goes on a rampage?

Here are 7 things we could do to help prevent another mass shooting:

And violating the US Constitution isn't one of them. If people want to overturn the 2nd Amendment? There's 2 ways to do so: 

  • Follow the clearly defined process which other Amendments have been overturned with before.
  • Take up arms and overthrow the US Government (that would be rather ironic, don't you agree?)

Sure, Jeff Sanders gets a little preachy at the end, but the facts remain: there ARE ways to drastically lower the chances of mass shootings in US schools without destroying the US Constitution. Enforcing existing laws would be a good idea before passing more and utterly useless laws, don't you think?
There are 212 comments:
Male 9
Amen!!

The solution to criminal gun violence is NOT taking guns away from law abiding citizens...thats just stupid.

look how well it worked in Canada, UK and Australia...they all now have MORE crime per capita like RAPE than the USA.


[img]https://nathanbickel.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/piersmorganguncontrolstats.jpeg[/img]
-1
Reply
Male 3,124
tribeben
Canada does have higher rates of arson, break-in's, and auto theft.

America has higher rates of rape, homicide, assault, robbery and more.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/85-002-x2001011-eng.pdf

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime

Canada's rate of rape averages about 1.5, while the US averages about 30.0

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
0
Reply
Male 42,934
jaysingrimm That's a puppet, not a real person, just FYI.
-1
Reply
Male 3,124
5cats
I dunno - Mars was way more satirical.

I'm not convinced anyone is using sock puppets.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
jaysingrimm A couple of them have admitted it, about the really obvious ones. Mars has used them before, or just changed his main account to a new name a few times too.
Others have made the mistake of saying "I said..." when in fact it was one of their puppets who said it. Pretty clear evidence I think.

Meanwhile? markust thinks I'm other people because:
- Sometimes they're not on when I'm not on
- They say "fuck" sometimes...
I mean really... seriously! That's pretty much the most intelligent reasons he gave, the rest were really dumb!
-1
Reply
Male 6,503
5cats At least you are consistent in your dishonesty. It’s your use of “cunt” but more important the way you use it as an insult that gives your sock puppets away the most. As usually you are trying to steer away from something that gives you away.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
markust123 Um, no? Why would I do such a thing when I never use any puppets?
Stupid cunt, see the other comment here for a rational comment about this. meanwhile go fuck yourself ok?
-1
Reply
Male 6,503
5cats You can scream and spew profanity until you are blue in the face but it won't change that it is blatantly clear you are using sock puppets. I'm not the only one who can clearly see this. Why you do this and why you continue to do it after you have been found out are the big questions.
0
Reply
Male 682


Dramarama.  People gotta get laid, angry fucks.  Don't worry your mom will be home later, she won't be hungry because she's been eating sausage all day. 
0
Reply
Male 3,124
We allow the sale of AR-15's, etc. in Canada, although we require a course and test be completed satisfactorily.

Carry permits require solid justification. We don't arm our teachers. Canada is largely a 'gun free zone'

While you may view a firearm as a right, we tend to see it as a privilege to be earned.

I'm curious what people think is the big difference between how mental health is treated in Canada than America.

If the problem isn't loose regulations, or attitudes about firearms, why exactly does America suffer this problem worse than its contemporaries?

"Take countries with the top indicators of socioeconomic success — income per person and average education level, for instance. The United States ranks ninth in the world among them, bested only by the likes of Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Iceland, Andorra, Canada and Finland.

Those countries all also enjoy low rates of gun violence, but the U.S. has the 31st highest rate in the world: 3.85 deaths due to gun violence per 100,000 people in 2016. That was eight times as high as the rate in Canada, which had 0.48 deaths per 100,000 people — and 27 times higher than the one in Denmark, which had 0.14 deaths per 100,000." link
1
Reply
Female 8,530
you know what- those of you who want guns, more guns, even more guns- have the fucking things- fucking kill each other, no one actually cares. Sadly you will kill your children, your family and your pets too- but go ahead. Just keep that fucking shit away from the rest of us...fun pouint. In the UK you can have any gun you want- probably a small missile or two as well- just one caveat- you must explain what you NEED it for that doesn't involve shooting people. Oddly enough.........
1
Reply
Male 729
madduck Americans can own all the guns they want because of the 2nd amendment. Well, I say as long as they use the tech of the day.

In 1791, common guns included muskets and flintlock pistols. According to the Washington Post, a "Typical Revolutionary-era musket" had a one-round magazine capacity, and it could fire around three effective rounds per minute – in the hands of the most skilled wielder.
1
Reply
Female 8,530
abetterworld I know, what is so horribly, heartbreakingly sad is that a very blatant commercial lobbying group ( NRA) has managed to convince so many people that any attempt to regulate guns somehow equates to an assault of freedom. i honestly think that those who believe in unfettered gun use, religion over all else including a childs right to life, and all that bollocks, should simply be hered into a large state and allowed that freedom- no children, all consenting- then just barricade the fuckers in. leave 'em- no contact, nothing. They can do what ever the fuck they want- leaving sane people to live. Lets be honest, most would die fairly quickly and the remaining society would be truly hellish but if that is what they truly want- let the fuckers choke on it.
1
Reply
Male 1,634
 Enforcing existing laws would be a good idea before passing more and utterly useless laws, don't you think? 

How long have I been saying this?  Years?
1
Reply
Male 42,934
waldo863 Many if not most liberal-lefties here think the only solution is more laws. Just look at the comments eh? It's all they support.
 
Just below this? A libby-lefty saying teachers are TOO STUPID to handle a gun. HIS words, not mine.
-1
Reply
Male 7,525
0
Reply
Male 42,934
daegog So you're saying all American teachers are idiots who should not be trusted to be in care of children then?
You said it bub, not me...
-2
Reply
Male 1,203
5cats 

Everybody: "Hey guys, there are too many guns getting into schools!"

5cats: "Well, shit, let's just increase the number of guns in the schools. Checkmate, atheists."
0
Reply
Male 42,934
BuckeyeJoe You ignore the reality: ILLEGAL GUNS or CRIMINALS with guns. THAT is the only problem here.
A police officer, a security guard with a gun in a school? As there are thousands across America with those? Is THAT "killing the children"? No. Plainly it is not "the gun" that is the issue it is the criminal with a gun, axe, knife, bomb or arsonist. 

Guns used to be a part of every school in America, yet there were almost ZERO mass shootings back then... facts matter.
-2
Reply
Male 1,203
5cats Oh, bullshit. Newsflash: your alternate "facts" DON'T matter. 

Criminals who kill people with guns aren't necessarily criminals UNTIL they do this. You stupid wanker. Stop trying to change the subject. The research shows:

you increase guns, then you increase gun violence.

Fucking dumbshit saying: "b-b-b-but back in colonial times everyone had guns!"

Then go fetch me some colonial DATA to back-up your bullshit, made up claims. 

You are bad at lying. 
0
Reply
Male 1,203
5cats LOL, 5Cat's solution, everybody:

We have a gun problem, so let's give everybody guns!

Just like: We have a cocaine problem, so let's give everybody cocaine!

You defy natural selection every time you open your mouth. You are too stupid to live, yet here we are. 
1
Reply
Male 1,634
BuckeyeJoe Actually, both of those things are true.  If you give everyone guns, the people that want to use them to kill people will be MUCH more wary knowing they are MUCH more likely to get shot back.

As for cocaine.  Yes, make it legal, and you get rid of the shady underground drug deals that go bad.  It's also not a taboo anymore, so it's not something that people will do to rebel.  Use the money we spend fighting it to instead educate and rehabilitate, and yes, it will go away.

Look at smoking cigarettes.  No one ever made them illegal, but over time as a society we discovered they were bad for us and people look down on people who smoke.  There are not as many smokers anymore and it did not take making it illegal.
0
Reply
Male 1,203
waldo863 Here's the problem: there is no good evidence to support:

"If you give everyone guns, the people that want to use them to kill people will be MUCH more wary knowing they are MUCH more likely to get shot back."

But there is evidence to support the converse.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
BuckeyeJoe Morphine is used in every hospital in America, it's basically heroin, you have a problem with that? It's a simple yes/no question.

And yes BTW the Canadian Gov't is giving heroin addicts free heroin, free needles, a "safe place to shoot" and much more! 

Again: it is CRIMINALS with drugs that are the problem, yes? Not hospitals or paramedics, correct?
-2
Reply
Male 1,203
5cats Try to stay on topic. If you wander around too much you'll just confuse yourself.

The reason why you keep coming up with analogous examples to justify your position is because they are all you have. 

If there was actual evidence and data supporting your position you wouldn't end up erecting these straw-man arguments.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
BuckeyeJoe No one advocates giving guns to convicted criminals, there are laws in place: enforce those before adding useless ones.

There is tons of facts and evidence for my side, I don't see any links for your opinions, yet you call me out? Hahahahaaa! Very funny.

You even supported one of my arguments, and probably don't even know it. :-)
-1
Reply
Male 1,203
5cats Nor do I see links for yours. 

The fact that you think I supported your argument shows how out of touch you are with this issue.
0
Reply
Male 90
5cats you are a fucking disgrace
3
Reply
Male 1,961
Wah wah whiny lying bitch.
4
Reply
Male 2,570
Stop feeding the troll, for fuck sake.
6
Reply
Male 42,934
oobaka Yes! Censor anything oobaka doesn't approve of at once!!
For fuck's sake...
-7
Reply
329
This is an argument made by mentally disturbed individuals. Blaming victims, and suggesting that the only way to fight fire is with even more fire. 


5
Reply
Male 10,234
pleasestop Have you ever fought fire?

I have...and there are times where fire is the best defense against fire. 

note: For homework today please look up the following terms:  prescribed burn, hazard reduction burning, backfire, swailing, & burn-off.  Realize that fire is a natural part of the ecology, and using fire is a valid took in minimize the destruction of fire.
-1
Reply
Male 18,342
megrendel you're not supposed to back burn kids. I expect some armed guard will nail a student and plant a squirt gun. It's only a matter of time if you have people whose jobs it is to shoot aarmed kids.
0
Reply
Male 10,234
Draculya Man, the amount of mental gymnastics ya'll are using to intentionally misinterpret an analogy is....well, quite frankly, what morons who have no sane argument are best at.
0
Reply
Male 309
megrendel That is one of the stupidest analogies I have ever heard proposed.  You know the students are the "vegetation" being preemptively destroyed by your controlled /backfires analogy?  All we have to do is kill people before the gunman can in order to lower his kill count. 
1
Reply
Male 42,934
stevopusser How about stopping the GUNMAN dumb-ass? How about THAT?
-2
Reply
Male 10,234
stevopusser  All we have to do is kill people before the gunman can in order to lower his kill count. 

If that's what you get out of that, all we can conclude is that you are fucking stupid and/or desperate. 

The analogy was 'You can't fight fire with fire', which is a dumbass analogy because obviously you can. 

A SANE person would get that one thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
0
Reply
Male 2,799
megrendel   Beet me to the punch. Another way of saying it is you don't respond to violence with a bouquet of flowers. The real trick is to stop them before you need a gun.
0
Reply
Male 10,079
casaledana Waiter! Waiter! A beet punch for Mr. Casa here, s'il vous plaît.

0
Reply
Male 42,934
pleasestop If he had a sidearm? It is possible many lives could have been saved that day, including his.
He did not, because of YOUR laws all those kids died without a chance of survival. Deal with reality please. Small chance > zero chance, every single time.

-2
Reply
356
5cats he could have disobeyed the law just like the kid did. he had just as much of a chance at having a gun.  lol he chose not to carry. he wouldnt have carried if it was legal like most people. dont be an idiot

the anti gun regulation logic dictats that there is no point in the laws anyways because people dont even need to follow it
0
Reply
Male 42,934
bill_watson So... you're saying we should MAKE lawful citizens DISOBEY laws in order to save lives?
If he had gotten fired (as he would have, instantly) that would have saved HIS life, this is true...
But the next security guard would have been just as defenseless as he was... and would end up just as dead.

That's really fucking stupid dude. I had thought you were smarter than that but nope, you're a real dumb-ass!

To claim he 'would NOT have carried' is absolutely incredible. Why not go spit (or shit, like you progressives love to do) on his grave when you say that? To claim, based on your fantasy world, he would NEVER have done his best to protect the children is beyond disgusting. It's deplorable.
-3
Reply
Male 10,234
bill_watson he could have disobeyed the law just like the kid did. he had just as much of a chance at having a gun.

That statement right there proved the adage: If you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns.

bill_watson he chose not to carry. he wouldnt have carried if it was legal like most people

You realize that MANY people choose to carry legally, correct?  I believe someone in charge of the safety of students would choose to carry.
0
Reply
Male 1,634
megrendel I really think that most of these people do not realize exactly how many people do carry.  Both my Dad and my Uncle carry concealed 99% of the time.  You would never know it.  You could be pumping gas on the other side of the pump and not know there is a man with a gun right there.  It likely happens to them multiple times a day where they are near people carrying concealed, but they don't see it so it doesn't exist.
0
Reply
Male 10,234
waldo863 I carry the majority of the time, also.  I've been at a family party carrying and no one knew it until someone asked what I usually carried.  I pulled it out and they were like, 'Where did you have that at?'.
0
Reply
356
If I recall there were many republicans 15-30 years ago that had gun regulation ideas. in the 80's and 90's.
I dont think I would lump republicans and liberals into such a stupid stereo types, thats kind of ignorant.

Its only been in the last ten years or so that people have been putting no regulation laws on the tables as a republican thing and rational regulatory laws on liberals.
Republicans just repealed laws that prevented people with known mental illness from having guns. and your still tooting your horn about heroes needing to have guns. Weve seen what cops do with guns and they stright up kill many innocent people every year with them. No one has ever even attempted to throw regulations at people like the guy in the picture.

Id rather have navy seals with knives and stun guns for protection because those guys could have stopped the florida shooter with nothing more than a couple of small office trinkets. Also with no loss of life. 

Its possible that this person could have easilly had a gun,  (just as easilly as the shooter) and he chose not to carry. Probaqbly because most sane people dont bring guns to school. Nowadays though there are police at a lot of schools and typically they are always packin.

Still if your going to be on the police force for your life career you should be knowledgeable in how to not kill people and still do your job.
3
Reply
Male 42,934
bill_watson So ONLY the cops should have guns then! And the super rich too of course.
Great idea bub! You've just supported my argument that the liberals cannot tell the truth in a discussion about guns.

Like: He didn't CHOOSE he was FORBIDDEN BY LAW (or at least the rules of the school and school board he worked for) he'd have been fired or arrested if he'd brought a sidearm to his job, you get it yet?? YOUR laws helped to kill those kids.
-1
Reply
356
5cats yea i didnt say who should have guns. dont be a cunt.
infact im pretty sure i said that id prefer it if the cops didnt have guns, also inever specified whether im a concervative or a liberal. 
I didnt make any laws regarding guns.

please fuck off and die troll
0
Reply
Male 42,934
bill_watson Your true colours are revealed. Bye bye faggot!
-3
Reply
Male 1,217
5cats Faggot? You really think bringing homophobic language into the discussion is appropriate? That is truly despicable.
1
Reply
Male 42,934
mrteatime No, it's just a way to piss him off :-)
And his language, and that of Buckeye and others, you're fine with that? Or are you employing a double standard? It's a fair question, yes?
-3
Reply
Male 1,217
5cats Don't go playing the victim. You crossed a line of decency that most people on this site seem to respect. I would have called up any other user doing the same but I just happened to see your little outburst. 
2
Reply
Male 1,634
mrteatime Yet you call 5cats out for responding to someone who told him to fuck off and die without calling that person out.  You say you would, but you did not.  Actions speak louder than words.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
mrteatime I eagerly await you coming to my defense in the very near future! Thanks.
And the ensuing shit-storm the IAB Liberals will throw at you, just giving a warning...
-1
Reply
Male 18,342
5cats you can't claim the moral high ground if people lower themselves to your level.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
Draculya Um, then neither can you with some of the garbage you've said here?
But you try to anyhow.
It's a case-by-case basis. If someone were to act politely towards me? I'd do the same in return.
If they falsely accuse me of things based entirely on their hate-fueled imagination? And continue to do so even after I've politely tried to reason with them? Then fuck'em, who cares if I "hurt their wittle feelings"? Eh?
-1
Reply
Male 1,634
5cats Even when we disagree, which is quite frequently, you are always polite towards me.  I can't say the same about some of these guys.
0
Reply
Male 6,503
The Gun Free Zone Act of 1990, that is used as blame in the American Thinker article you linked to in your amature opinion piece, had bipartisan support and was signed into law by George Bush.

I can't find the Senate vote but here's the House Vote:
Democrats: 178
Republicans: 135

There was one Nay vote. ONE.

5cats, "But we can't have a 'rational debate' about guns with the liberals since all they do is tell lies."

Just because this issue has turned so sickeningly partisan does not make it the liberals fault. You're the liar for blaming it all on liberals. If anything is to blame it is the partisan pundits, that the extreme left and right get their misinformation from, who have made it impossible for congress to work together anymore. People like you are also to blame for spreading this partisan misinformation and disinformation.
3
Reply
Male 176
i missed you 5cats
-2
Reply
Male 42,934
theman01 I never went anywhere, but thanks :-)
-1
Reply
Male 18,342
You lost me at MSM. MSM means legitimate journalism but has been perverted by the alt-reality parties.
0
Reply
Male 6,337
Draculya remember fox news is hardcore journalism keeping it real without corporate influence or motive
1
Reply
Male 42,934
Draculya HAHAHAHAAAA! Says a guy from China... the Communists totally have complete freedom of the press, right??
-4
Reply
Male 176
Draculya thats right you are lost 
-1
Reply
1,111
What a heap of  bullshit. I really do feel sorry for the sane, level headed Americans that have to deal with delusional nonsense like this. 

Mass shootings are a rarity in other developed western countries, prevention isn't "giving the good guys a gun".

Prevention is strict gun licensing laws. 
7
Reply
Male 1,634
layla_wilson The thing is, we have those laws, they are just not enforced.  The same people that want to take guns away continue to vote against funding the enforcement of current laws.  It's really fucked up.
0
Reply
Male 176
layla_wilson but but but... The solution to people using guns to kill a lot of people is obviously MORE guns. The problem is there just aren't enough guns. We won't be safe from gun violence until every man, women, and child is carrying a gun.
0
Reply
Male 118
Both sides lie or exaggerate statistics.  I don't think the left is always purposely lying about firearms, they are just severely uneducated about them.  They should educate themselves better on things they want to regulate or outright make illegal.  The best analogy to this I can give is when old white republicans create legislation on women's health issues.  Something they no very little about.
-1
Reply
Male 1,634
starzokc The best analogy is the lady who wanted to ban high capacity magazine because she thought they couldn't be reloaded and once used up would be gone.  When confronted about it, she said, "Oh, I obviously meant clips, not magazines."  Which are the same thing.

You are exactly right though.  These people know absolutely nothing about what they want to ban.  They don't know the first thing abut guns at all.


1
Reply
Male 70
starzokc You say "the left" like all of "the right" are armed and super educated about firearms and all of "the left" aren't, which is clearly hyperbolic bullshit. My grandfather was in the Navy in WWII, my dad did 3 tours in Vietnam, I grew up getting up for revelry every f*ing morning with ordinance firing off hundreds of yards away and did 2 tours in Iraq. We need stricter gun laws, period.

Righties who drone on and on about 2nd amendment rights but who fail to appreciate the technological advances in guns from when this country was shaped and what we have available now are idiots. Righties who drone on and on about how they need their gunz to stop the government in case it turns on them are fucking idiots. There's nothing you will be able to do to stop a drone route over your house or a fully armed swat team (since we're militarizing the police at this point which is a totally different topic).

Assault rifles and a good portion of shotguns are useful for one thing and one thing only - killing other people. The VAST majority of people (who own them) in America are not prepared to use them because they have zero actual training and do not go through daily rote routines in actually using them and preparing to use them, and you're not going to have a fucking combat unit invade your house to the point where you need x rounds per minute.

Couple that with the things like the recent removal of restrictions on the mentally ill's ability to get weapons and it's all bullshit.

No one wants to take your defense away. No one wants to take your hunting ability away. We want common sense laws - even those of us who have literally grown up with guns and used them in combat situations.

3
Reply
Male 42,934
devthep Good thing assault rifles are already HIGHLY restricted then eh? And almost never used in crimes in America.
 
The 1st Amendment shouldn't apply to the internet then, because the Founding Fathers didn't know about it, it isn't covered either, right?

Guns cannot possibly be used for peaceful purposes! nope, never. Hunting, collecting, home defense, sports... nope! IMPOSSIBLE for them to be put to those uses!!

You don't want to take those away? But you DO want to take away everyone's guns, starting with the soft targets and driving the wedge in until there are none left...

Define: mentally ill. That is a serious question. Until such time a a citizen breaks a law? Why should he/she have their human rights suspended?
-4
Reply
Male 118
devthep first of all I would like to thank you for your service.  Second of all I did not intend to insult anyone’s intelligence.  Ignorance and intelligence are not one and the same.  But to use your own words you would have to be a “fucking idiot” to think that your average liberal voter is as educated about firearm functionality and terminology as your average conservative voter is.  I would hope that you are not the type of soldier that if given orders too, would kick in the doors of peaceful families to take there firearms away.  The threat of tyranny is real and has happened many times throughout history. Just because things are peaceful now doesn’t mean they will be in the future.  Giving up the only real tool we have to fight a radicalized government in my opinion is incredible dangerous.  Not only for us but future generations as well.  I can hunt and defend my home with a break action shotgun, but neither of those things is what the second amendment is about.  Firearms development had been going on for nearly 500 years when the constitution was drafted.  They had to have know it was going to continue and that firearms were going to continue to become more advanced.  They put that amendment in place because they knew how important it was for the citizens to have ultimate control if necessary.  Semiautomatic rifles account for about 2% of the murder rate.  If our government cares so much about public safety they would go after sub 300 dollar handguns which account for the vast majority of murder weapons.  They don’t care how many people kill each other with those.  Every day a few dozen people die at the hands of cheap handguns.  The real issue is control.  You can’t fight a well armed force with a handgun, but you can have a chance with a rifle.  I’m sure that your father can attest to the fact that men scattered throughout the country side armed with rifles can be a difficult enemy to defeat, even for the most advanced military force in the world.  I have absolutely no perverse fantasies of fighting my government and hope that me, my children or any generation after them will never have to.  But I am not willing to compromise on any more gun restrictions, magazine capacity limitations or types of firearms that I can not own because they’re “to dangerous.”
-2
Reply
Male 10,079
devthep I wish I could upvote your post 10 times, Devthep. Great comment.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
starzokc Waiting for broizfam to chastise you for saying there's no Republicans who are women, doctors or married even... not holding my breath though. :-)
-4
Reply
Male 6,337
all it takes is one word
DERP
3
Reply
Male 10,079
I object, Fancy.

This article may have been "submitted by" 5Cats, but it's been published by I-Am-Bored.com. And when IAB publishes a sentence such as "But we can't have a 'rational debate' about guns with the liberals since all they do is tell lies," IAB is publishing hate speech. That isn't a comment in a thread, attributable to one user; it's primary content that IAB is offering up to its community and the English-speaking world generally.

When you publish content like this, it makes me seriously reconsider whether I want to be associated with your website.
12
Reply
Male 6,503
squrlz4ever I've never seen a comment with 12 positive votes. I'd say many people agree with what you are saying.

I wouldn't call the comment 5cats said about liberals hate speech. You're not born a liberal or a conservative. But what's funny is 5cats will call me a bigot as a projection tactic when I point out his actual bigotry, and when I ask him to explain he says I am a bigot because I hate conservatives; which is so hypocritical to his absolute hatred and bunching together of liberals. For the record, I don't hate conservatives. I hate one conservative. And it's not even hatred. I just dislike him because he is so slimy and dishonest in his debating. He ruins every post he is in with a flood of anger and partisan misinformation.

But I do agree with you that personal jabs should not be in the posts themselves. That does reflect negatively on the community as a whole. But as a community, we're already screwed. When someone looks up AGW myths a bunch of disproven 5cats IAB posts will come up, but you can't tell they are disproven because 5cats refuses to add a retraction to any of his posts. When someone looks up flat-earthers a whole bunch of batshit crazy monk IAB posts will come up. When someone looks up 9/11 a whole bunch of crazy monk IAB conspiracy posts come up. If you look at just the posts, we are THE site for bad science. Fancy is a good guy but he has sacrificed his integrity for clicks. Fancy also puts up with trolls for clicks. The troll in question should have been banned years ago for his bigotry alone. Fancy loves the fights; they mean more clicks, which means more money. Whenever someone is in a fight with 5cats, as soon as it is dwindling down fancy will approve one or two new 5cats posts to try and keep the fight going. That happened to me last week. I wasn't going for that shit and took a few days off from IAB. The sad truth is the fun posts don't pay the bills. It's the ones where people get all worked up and click click click that does, so we're stuck with the mentally unstable, bigoted troll, and the conspiracy theorist. I am not going to claim I am innocent. I absolutely come here to debate politics. It is the one place in my life where I do. But at least I try to stick with the facts. I love when I am proved wrong. It means I have learned and grown.
3
Reply
Male 42,934
markust123 He has lots of puppets, that's why.
-4
Reply
Male 10,079
5cats No, it's not why. As I have stated repeatedly, I have never once used a sockpuppet on IAB and I never will. The only person I'm aware of who's using sockpuppets on IAB is you, yourself, most notably with your Moldysod account. There are two or three others, including Fojos; it is hard to keep track of them.

No, the reason my objection garnered 12 upvotes is because IAB'ers are tired of the hate and misinformation you bring onto the site.
0
Reply
Male 6,503
squrlz4ever I just read through the most recent Fojos comments. He is totally him. 
0
Reply
Male 10,079
markust123 Yeah, there you go. You see? 

I could tell you the reasons I was tipped off, but I'd rather keep those cards close to my little hand-crocheted squirrel vest.

Why 5Cats has created such an account is obvious, I think. He spends much of his time on right-wing websites that routinely publish articles with titles like, "The Real TRUTH of the Socialist Hell That Is Sweden," etc., etc. Creating a fake Swede on here is a very useful, albeit deceitful, rhetorical device for him.

Honestly, the levels of dishonesty that are going on with him? It is pretty astounding and makes my fur crawl.
0
Reply
Male 6,503
squrlz4ever Is he Fojos? I have a pretty good idea he is also chokohpek. I have a few white hat friends. If I was a lesser person I would have them hack in and get the Users DB for me. It would be funny if he was also monk and they were all Fancy.

0
Reply
Male 10,079
markust123 Without the IT forensics, the best we can do is confidence levels, with "Definitely" meaning a 9.9/10 confidence level, "Almost Certainly" meaning 9/10, "Probably" meaning 8.5/10, and anything less being rated "Insufficient Evidence."

SUSPECTED 5CATS SOCKPUPPET ACCOUNTS
1. MoldySod: Definitely
2. TheThing911: Almost Certainly
3. Fojos: Almost Certainly

I'm omitting from the list any suspected accounts less certain than those for obvious reasons.

Of course, the longer he uses the sockpuppet accounts, the better the determinations become. For example, today, after both accounts were dormant for over 13 hours, both the 5Cats account and the Moldysod account sprang to life within fifteen minutes of each other with comments directed at me in the same thread.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
squrlz4ever Fucking lies, all of them. You cannot have any proof because none exists, so fucking shut up.
-1
Reply
Male 6,503
squrlz4ever It does look like he is Fojos:

"For all you stupid cunts.”
“Are you dumb as fuck?”
“Not unique to women, you dumb cunt.”

Classic 5cats.


0
Reply
Male 42,934
markust123 No one else here ever uses the word fuck? Fucking stupid-ass...
-1
Reply
Male 6,503
5cats I love how you ignore the obvious way you use “cunts” as an insult and focus on the one “fuck”. Classic 5cats deflection away from losing an argument.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
markust123 I haven't used 'cunt' for quite a while now, haven't you noticed?
Stupid cunt...
There" happy now? Just fucking stop telling lies and I'll be happy to ignore you OR reply politely.
But I'm not taking this campaign of lies lightly, it's disgusting, so stop it.

#1 You have ZERO PROOF. None, it is entirely your imagination.
#2 There is NO WAY I can 'disprove it' so why even bother trying?

If you think I use puppets? Just don't reply! But since I don't use puppets (why would I?) you'd just be ignoring real people. No biggie, they probably don't want to hear your whining shit anyhow...
But spreading lies and gossip isn't tolerable, so cut it out.
-1
Reply
Male 42,934
squrlz4ever You are a fucking liar, no one believes you.
You constantly accuse me of using puppets, based on... your fantasies! That's called lying or delusional, take your pick. Your psychotic ravings are clearly pointing to the second answer, but it's still a lie.

Now fuck off already. You know it is from puppets, yours and other trolls, and that's all there is to say.
-1
Reply
Male 10,079
5cats The many IAB'ers who are aware of your sockpuppet accounts aren't relying on guesswork or fantasies. The similarities in punctuation, key phrases, rhetorical patterns, certain obsessive topics, the timing of when the accounts were created, and the timing of the accounts' activities that are coincidental with your 5Cats account all make it obvious.

As I've said before in relation to your Moldysod account. I don't know what's more awkward: That you're a grown adult using sockpuppets or that somehow you're unaware how obvious it is to everyone.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
squrlz4ever 


The psychopath after his bum-buddy is done with him...
-2
Reply
Male 10,079
5cats Interesting. What else you got? This whole slideshow into your mind is pretty fascinating, I must say. ~munching popcorn~
0
Reply
Male 6,503
squrlz4ever Check out the last six or so comments from thething911. The anger is so 5cats. I am now 100% sure it is him.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
markust123 You're sure raping little boys is legal too, aren't you...
-2
Reply
Male 6,503
5cats, “You're sure raping little boys is legal too, aren't you...”

You’ve said some pretty messed up things over the years but that is really creepy. If I were you I’d bring this statement up at your next therapy session. It is your mind that went there.
1
Reply
Male 10,079
markust123 Agreed. The rage or anger or whatever it is just leaks out, regardless of the account.

Did you see his latest exchange with me as 5Cats/Moldysod?
0
Reply
Male 6,503
squrlz4ever He usually doesn’t fight back the puppet accusations as moldysod. Thats a new one.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
markust123 Here's a new one: Fuck your own ass, ok?
-2
Reply
Male 10,079
markust123 There's a lot to think about in that comment of yours, Markus. Thanks.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
squrlz4ever You have fuck-all to think about you psychopathic shit.
-2
Reply
Male 10,079
5cats LOL! ~starts popping some popcorn~ I could be wrong, but it looks like we've got another 5Cats meltdown about to burst forth in all its glory. Awesome.
0
Reply
Male 10,234
squrlz4ever IAB publishes a sentence such as "But we can't have a 'rational debate' about guns with the liberals since all they do is tell lies," IAB is publishing hate speech.

You have a weird concept of what constitutes hate speech. 

Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.

Now, unless you're willing to admit that Liberalism is a disability, then his statement doesn't meet the definition of hate speech. (i.e. Liberals =/= a race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability or gender.  All he said was an opinion. An incorrect one not supported by the fact, true, but an opinion.)

Of course, many Liberals will define as Hate speech any speech that disagrees with them.
0
Reply
Male 10,079
megrendel A swing and a miss. In your own definition (lifted from Wikipedia, it appears), did you miss the words "such as"? Do you really think hate speech is restricted to those six categories? It's not; those categories are the only categories when it comes to the definition of a Protected Class in employment law. When it comes to hate speech, however, they are merely examples of the kinds of groups that can be targeted by hate speech.

If you don't believe me, please see the definition of hate speech per Merriam-Webster.

Honestly, Grendel, I'm a little disappointed in you here and I mean that genuinely and not as an insult. Are you actually okay with speech that works to dehumanize a group of people, whatever term you want to use to describe it? I'm going to trust that no, in fact, you aren't okay with such speech, and in this instance, you got carried away with an attempt to score points by a technicality and missed the bigger picture.

Also, what's going on? I think this is now the third or fourth thread you've aggressively come after me in the last 24 hours. Is something in your personal life making you more pugnacious than usual? Were you offended that I pointed out the Washington quote of yours was spurious?

I have always liked to think that our relations are cordial and that we share a sense of mutual respect, but I'm beginning to wonder.
0
Reply
Male 10,234
Squrlz4ever  Yes, I've always found our relationship to be cordial and I do respect you, but I've found several posts in the last few days upon which I disagree with you.

I'm not 'aggressively coming after' you. I'm simply disagreeing with you.  (the disability line was a joke, btw... a play on the popular 'mental disorder' statement)

In this case it seems you are falling for the ploy of finding any statement that disagrees with you as 'hate' speech.   

There is nothing in his statement that constituted hate speech.  I do not agree with his statement, but I do not find it hate speech. (for that matter, I wouldn't consider calling anyone a liar 'hate speech', as it's simply an opinion.) 

Nor do I find liberals a distinct 'group', as with conservatives their mindset can fall anywhere along a Bell Curve. (now, when I spell liberal with a capital 'L', I am referring to a distinct subset that are truly demented....the Professional Liberal...not to be confused with someone who simply has a liberal bent.  I wouldn't say you couldn't have a rational debate with liberals on guns, you can.  I WOULD say you can't have a rational debate with Liberals on any subject.)

I'm also disappointed that you want to ban any speech you don't like from this site. And using a very Liberal definition of 'hate speech' to sanctify it. 

Now, there is a certain 'not sure of the shape of the earther' here I would LOVE to see disappear, just so we wouldn't have to put up with the sheer stupidity. But I've never asked him to be banned. I'd just like for him to have an epiphany and realize just how ignorant he is. 

And even if I hear speech that 'I' consider hate speech, I understand that hate speech is also covered under the 1st Amendment (although, not relevant here).


0
Reply
Male 10,079
megrendel Alas, I disagree with most of what you say here.

You've made the claim more than once that I want to label any statement disagreeing with a position of mine, or any statement I dislike, as hate speech.

Honestly? You really think that of me? If, indeed, you do, I'm overtaken by disappointment at finding what I thought was mutual regard is something else.

People disagree with me constantly on here. Take a look at my comment table if you want to see the comments I've been dealing with for the past 24 hours. Yet none of it is hate speech nor have I ever claimed it was.

Because you seem to have missed the examples of hate speech I gave before, let me repeat them here:

Jews are all greedy. Never trust a Jew when it comes to money. Or anything else for that matter.

or

Gays are a cancer on society. Every fiber of their being is consumed with immorality. They don't think like you or I do.

or

It's impossible to have a rational debate with liberals. All they do is lie.

What does every one of these examples of hate speech have in common? They turn a group of human beings into cardboard cutouts with a label--Jew, Gay, Liberal--and an associated trait that strips them of humanity and individuality. It is speech designed to work its way into the listener's brain so he cannot help but see the contemptible cardboard cutout when he encounters a member of that group ("Ah, a Liberal--all they do is lie.")

It blows my mind that I have objected to hate speech as part of IAB's primary content, and I have been worked over from every possible angle for the past 24 hours by people who think I'm unreasonable or worse. Who knew that advocating for decency would be this controversial?
0
Reply
Male 10,234
squrlz4ever What does every one of these examples of hate speech have in common? 

I disagree that every one of those examples constituted hate speech.
0
Reply
Male 10,079
megrendel So a quick apology here. I recognize you weren't attacking me, and I'm sorry I got as upset with you as I did. I was getting it from all sides when this exchange took place and I was suffering from "contradiction fatigue." I hope we can maintain the history we've had of cordiality going forward.

Regarding my objection about the post, let me clarify. It's not that I think the whole post should not have gone up. I have no problem with the article (I disagree with a lot of it, but I recognize that IAB is better with diverse content). The entirety of my objection was with that one introductory sentence: "But we can't have a 'rational debate' about guns with the liberals since all they do is tell lies."

In my view, that could, and should, have been changed to something like, "But conservatives can't have a rational debate about guns with liberals if the liberals are getting the facts wrong" or, more aggressively, "But conservatives can't have a rational debate about guns with liberals if the liberals are misrepresenting the facts, either deliberately or through ignorance."

Either of those sentences would have been fine with me and not crossed the line into what I consider to be hate speech.

See you 'round in the threads.
0
Reply
Male 10,234
squrlz4ever No apologies necessary.  Hope you didn't feel I was piling on.

"contradiction fatigue."  I'll remember that term.
0
Reply
Male 10,079
megrendel Thanks, Grendel, I appreciate it.
0
Reply
Male 10,079
megrendel Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I'm fine with that.
0
Reply
Male 1,540
squrlz4ever
  I'd protect 5cats 's free speech even though i disagree with him. It's up to you, if you want to read the content. It's up to fancylad to decide what he wants posted on his website. 
  There have been repeated talks of silencing 5cats, and I will always be against it. If fancylad believes it's in his financial interest to censor submitted content, i'd understand, but would be disappointed. Maybe there is a solution that would please all? 
  How would you feel about an editor's note stating something like: "this content does not reflect views of IAB" or "beware of hateful speech"? 
  Another idea: "NSFW" is already used as a warning - why not have some other warning like "unverified/biased content"?
1
Reply
Male 42,934
boredhuman Thanks Bored-H, it's good that people speak up against this censorist.

But "labeling" posts? is that really necessary? That would force Fancy to make value judgements and impose them on the readers, yes? And what about the "baseless" posts by liberal-leftists? Like the one from NF2 that proclaimed that Trump "was flat broke" and thus at the mercy of Russian blackmailers. It was based on the fact that several of his ventures carried (iirc) 240 million in total "debt". Of course Trump is worth over 3 Billion... it was a bullshit article straight from the DNC, but it got posted here.

So Fancy lets us decide for ourselves, which is what makes IAB a good place, yes?

No one forces that psychopath to click my CLEARLY LABELED posts. He does so of his own free will yet casts the blame on others. Like... a psychopath! :-)
-2
Reply
Male 1,540
5cats "That would force Fancy to make value judgements and impose them on the readers, yes?" My main concern is that it would put additional strain on fancylad, and may be unrealistic. Ideally, baseless liberal views would also be labeled "unverified/biased".
"So Fancy lets us decide for ourselves, which is what makes IAB a good place, yes?" It is the way things are now, at least. Maybe "biased" is "verified" and  are poor/unnecessary labels. Bias is obvious in the content. And, fancylad cannot be expected to be a journalist checking every submission for accuracy.

"No one forces that psychopath to click my CLEARLY LABELED posts." Please cool it with the unnecessary insults. I can take them, but others are much more easily offended. I respect squrlz4ever for trying to make IAB better. 
I believe you make IAB better and more diverse by giving voice to conservatives. However, you harm the conservative movement by being profane and disrespectful*. More importantly (for me) is that it makes IAB a more hostile place. 

OK rant over... you are who you are. 

*unlike the rodent, I did not find this post offensive. However, I was offended that (apparently) you expressed physical violence in form of suggesting suicide - if true, it's unacceptable, and would warrant censorship. That's where I draw my line :(
0
Reply
Male 42,934
boredhuman The guy is a pathological liar (most likely) and has harassed me for many years now. I have nothing nice to say about him, why should I after all he has said and threatened to do to me, in real life I mean? Zero respect for garbage.

So we agree it's entirely unrealistic then, that's cool. I hope you'll point it out next time the plan arises...
-1
Reply
Male 1,540
5cats  "I have nothing nice to say about him, why should I after all he has said and threatened to do to me, in real life I mean?" Then don't say anything nice about him. That doesn't justify expressing violence to him.

"So we agree it's entirely unrealistic then, that's cool. I hope you'll point it out next time the plan arises..." Well, my exact position is: why not give it a try, see how it goes and determine if it's unrealistic. But yeah, I'll be sure to bring up and back up your points if fancylad intends to inject his personal value judgments into submissions.  
0
Reply
Male 42,934
boredhuman I tried ignoring him, for many months now, very rarely even looked at his nonsense. What else can I do? He spreads lies and rumours, and gullible IAB Liberals hear them and believe them and also repeat them. He frequently comments at me or about me, the guy is sick, obsessed and probably mentally ill. He used to admit this but lately is denying it...

So now I'll keep after him until he stops harassing me and stops those lies. No skin off my teeth.
-1
Reply
Male 10,079
boredhuman Let me address these issues of free speech, censorship, and "silencing 5Cats" that you raise. People misuse those terms and concepts all the time and I think you are here.

5Cats is, of course, free to use hate speech in whatever venue he can. I have no doubt there are multiple websites and blogger communities where he, in fact, does so. If he wants to paint himself a sandwich board that reads "ALL LIBERALS DO IS TELL LIES" or "MUSLIMS ARE FULL OF HATE" and march around his hometown, more power to him.

The issue here is not censorship (a term best used to describe when a government prevents someone from sharing information or ideas), but one of community and editorial standards.

IAB should not be publishing hate speech as primary content. Period. I find your suggestion of labels reading "Unverified/biased content" or "Beware of hateful speech" timid and insufficient in the face of something that should not be permitted in the first place.

IAB already exercises editorial standards now--what you might call "censorship"--whether you are aware of it or not. Try submitting an article that begins with, "Since we all know African Americans are lazy and intellectually inferior to Whites, I thought I'd share the following essay..." and see if that sentence gets published.

One of the dangers of an anonymous forum such as IAB is that it can encourage people to behave at their worst. Some editorial and community standards are necessary or the site can, and often will, crawl into the gutter to such an extent that intelligent adults don't want to be associated with it. (See, for example, 4chan.)

As an example of this kind of decline, I used to call out anyone when they would tell someone to "Fuck off and die," as occurs in this thread. Sadly, I don't anymore because those kinds of statements, and much worse, are becoming so common on IAB it would be an almost daily chore. About one week ago, in fact, one IAB'er--the author of the sentence I'm objecting to here--told me I was "scum," told me to die, and even included a graphic showing me how to slit my wrists so I'd wind up in the morgue.

But back to primary content, as opposed to comments, and hate speech. Ordinarily, IAB doesn't publish it. This time, however, it slipped through. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say it was an oversight. Regardless, it shouldn't have happened and in an attempt to keep this site from deteriorating further, I'm objecting to it.
0
Reply
Male 1,540
squrlz4ever
"People misuse those terms and concepts all the time and I think you are here." Let's whip out the dictionary:
def. censor, verb: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Or, let's look up censorship on wikipedia: suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or "inconvenient" as determined by government authorities or by community consensus.

I see you attempt to suppress 5cats 's posts, because you find them hateful and inaccurate, and you try to affect the (IAB) community consensus. You're inciting censorship.

"IAB already exercises editorial standards now--what you might call "censorship"--whether you are aware of it or not." Yes, i'd call it censorship - positive censorship. There are different kinds of censorship. I practice self-censorship routinely, by watching what I say and write. I'm all for removing spam-bots, even though it's censorship (think of AI's rights!) - same goes for pornography or other undesirable content. While you find 5cats 's content objectionable, I do not.

"One of the dangers of an anonymous forum such as IAB is that it can encourage people to behave at their worst." Speaking of editorial standards: one of important areas is privacy. I've seen you attempt to glean into personal information of other IAB users, and reveal personal information to 3rd parties. I value my anonymity, and despite it, I inevitably divulged some personal information. A lot of information can be deduced from comments as well. There's not much I can do except complain and keep my personal information private.

Freedom of expression is a basic right. 
Article 19 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

If you'd like to discuss whether 5cats posts qualify as hate speech and should be censored, we can look at various sources. Here are a few select quotes from
Journalism, media and Journalism, media and the challenge of human rights reporting

"The most problematic areas of this classic ‘first amendment’ doctrine lie around the fringes. For example, in countries with a consistent commitment to media freedom there are still enormous differences of approach to the issue of ‘hate speech’." - p. 28.

"Political, organisational, cultural and linguistic biases have an impact on what stories and events are selected — in human rights coverage as on other subjects. At their most benign, biases may be found in the pattern of coverage. Spanish media may cover the situation in Latin America more extensively than other areas. At its most extreme and pernicious, bias is to be found in the discriminatory and violent propaganda broadcast in Nazi Germany or by Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines during the genocidal killings in Rwanda in 1994." - p. 84

"Regardless, it shouldn't have happened and in an attempt to keep this site from deteriorating further, I'm objecting to it." I would also like to make IAB a better place. I respectfully disagree that censoring this 5cats post would make IAB a better place. I respect your right to voice your opinion, and even to work to encourage others to try and silence 5cats' voice. However, I will work against you - he has every right to speak his mind even if it's hopelessly biased, and inaccurate, and encourages partisanship. 

The solution I see is to provide more quality posts to fancylad, so he has the luxury to reject bad posts. If 5cats posts generate traffic, then it shows people want to read them - even if the high traffic is only because so many people object to them. If people "like" to read and respond to posts they object to, why should fancylad remove them? 

It's up to fancylad whether he values high traffic by a bad community (like 4chan) or better quality community at the cost of traffic. I know that you make this community better and it would be in fancylad's best interest to listen to your views closely. 
0
Reply
Male 10,079
boredhuman That has got to be one of the most over-the-top, self-important comments on IAB I have ever read.

To hear you describe it, 5Cats is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and you are bravely fighting to preserve freedom of human expression.

Bullfeathers. I never called for this entire post to be censored, nor did I call for 5Cats' voice to be silenced. I objected to a single sentence because it was hate speech. You grandly declare that you will "work against me" to ensure that 5Cats is always able to speak his mind.

Well, great. I presume that means you're now defending his post last week where he told me to kill myself and included a graphic showing how I should slit my wrists. 

I presume that also means you approve of his calling another IAB'er in this thread a "faggot." I mean, he's speaking his mind, right?

I presume that means you'll be defending 5Cats' meltdown last summer where he told me, "So suck shit little one, you are still a tiny little cunt just like your father!" 

I presume, also, that means you're going to defend his statements to Rumham: "Do you have any questions? If so? Shove them up your ass and call me when they come out your mouth. YOU ARE POINTLESS and should KYS [kill yourself] immediately. If not sooner."

If that's the kind of freedom of expression you want to "work against me" to defend, you're welcome to it.

As far as my mention of 5Cats' hometown goes, you're right. He's made so many references to his city over the past several years I thought little of it, but you're correct: That's personal information that I shouldn't have mentioned. I've deleted it from my comment and you'll be doing me a favor if you delete it from yours. Thanks.
0
Reply
Male 1,540
squrlz4ever "To hear you describe it, 5Cats is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn"
  That would make me a patriotic communist! This is wrong on so many levels, it's comical.  I know for a fact that 5cats routinely posts misinformation, and I disagree with him on most issues. He's often hateful and uninformed. 

"I never called for this entire post to be censored, nor did I call for 5Cats' voice to be silenced. I objected to a single sentence because it was hate speech."
  You would be perfectly fine with 5cats submitting the entire post, if the offending sentence were replaced with the title of the article: "We Can’t Have A Debate About Guns If Liberals Keep Lying About Them"?  Or would you argue that the federalist article has no place on IAB, because it expresses hate speech? 
  You haven't mentioned what action you would have fancylad take. I was recalling old comments that seriously discussed banning 5cats and felt it was yet another call for silencing him. I assumed you would have fancylad reject the submission in its entirety. If your intent was merely to bring to fancylad's attention that this article offended you, and he should be more careful reviewing articles - then I apologize for my overreaction. I did not find this article offensive. I found it partisan and disagreed with much of it, but I do believe it accurately represents the views of some conservatives.

"IAB should not be publishing hate speech as primary content."
  What if fancylad just like me and megrendel, did not find the statement offensive hate speech? Then there would be no reason to censor it. It would just remain an opinion piece that gives a voice to the conservatives.
  We can discuss what constitutes hate speech in detail, if you like. I would suggest SEP Freedom Speech article as a starting point.

  Again, it's up to fancylad as to the quality of articles he chooses to publish. It is our job to tell him if the quality of articles is going down. And it is up to us to submit better articles for him to publish.

"If that's the kind of freedom of expression you want to "work against me" to defend, you're welcome to it."
 
No, I will not defend his shitty comments - i will only defend his right to free expression of his shitty comments. I would attack his right to expression of physical violence: 2 of your examples, involving suicide, cross the line of free expression for me; others I view as ugly insults. 

At the core, the way to make IAB better is to have more quality content and have constructive discussions in the comments. I would propose to work in the positive direction: submit more good content and encourage good interactions, rather than attempt to eliminate bad posts and ban/ignore hateful comments. What's your view? 
1
Reply
Male 10,079
boredhuman Again, it's ungodly late, so this will be brief.

I had no particular problem with the article 5Cats submitted. Like you, I value diversity around here. My problem, as I've stated repeatedly, was the one sentence in the IAB intro that read, "But we can't have a 'rational debate' about guns with the liberals since all they do is tell lies."

That could, and should, have been changed to something like, "But conservatives can't have a rational debate about guns with liberals if the liberals are getting the facts wrong" or, more aggressively, "But conservatives can't have a rational debate about guns with liberals if the liberals are misrepresenting the facts, either deliberately or through ignorance."

Problem fixed. Hate speech averted. Not that hard, is it?

Thanks for the offer of an extended discussion about hate speech, but I'm going to pass. There is no universally accepted legal definition, and it's not an exception to the First Amendment. People have a right to use hate speech, if they so choose. Most educated adults prefer to avoid the company of those who do, however, and that's why many places, including websites, have policies against it.

What is hate speech to some might not be hate speech to others, as this thread has shown. I've given my definition of hate speech already in this thread and I stand by it; it's the best standard for hate speech that I've come across.

What if Fancy and I disagree about a sentence and he doesn't think it's hate speech? Then we disagree. He's the boss around here and he makes the calls. But Fancy has to know when his content crosses the line for his users; he's not a mindreader. Thus, my objection. I raised the red flag on that sentence and explained why. Seeing as my objection garnered a net +12 votes, which is pretty rare around here, it seems that a fair number of users shared my view.

Most of the time Fancy and I agree. This time we either didn't or it was a sentence of 5Cats' that he missed in the revising he had to do, which happens.

Hope that helps.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
boredhuman See? you cannot talk to him, reason with him or even keep him on topic!
He's garbage, I ignore his shit and wish he'd stop harassing me.
-3
Reply
Male 1,540
5cats I can reason with him, and I'm sure he'll write a good reply to my latest comment. My only problem with squrlz4ever is that he sometimes is too eager to glean into others' personal business. 
  I think he was being very disrespectful sharing your personal information he has learned from interacting with you on a public forum (i deleted the city name from my post. I don't care where you live, and don't remember it.) 
  As far as I can tell, he's been largely ignoring you lately - this is the first time he has commented on one of your posts in a very long time. 
0
Reply
Male 10,079
boredhuman I'll be happy to respond to your earlier comment later tonight after I've had some dinner. Thanks for waiting and I apologize for the delay.

Can you explain this comment of yours about me "gleaning into" others' personal business? (That's a usage error, frankly: you glean from, not into. I think you mean "prying into.")

The only time I can remember asking about personal information recently was in a conversation with Mel, where I asked where she lived generally, by which I meant region. She replied with her state, primarily because she wanted to talk about the state's taxes. Since she had volunteered that info, I gave similar information because I didn't want her to feel unilaterally exposed. Later, I thought about it, and was thinking we'd both probably divulged too much.

In terms of 5Cats' hometown, that is widely known by virtually anyone who's been on here a while, mainly because 5Cats himself talks about it. As recently as six months ago, in fact, he submitted a post about it and commented in the thread about his experiences living there.

Nonetheless, when you pointed out that I shouldn't have included that info in my comment, I agreed and removed it.

Now, aside from those two incidents, is there something else you have in mind? I would really like to know because I am not aware that I am prying into other's business on this site. This is the first complaint of it, in almost a decade, that I've heard.
1
Reply
Male 1,540
squrlz4ever
  Pry is a better word, but it didn't come to mind as I wrote the comment. The meaning I put into the word "glean" was that you gather information on IAB users bit by bit over long period of time to get a better sense of the people within the community.
  The last time I called out your prying was when you were inquiring about DrCribben's nationality. It's innocent enough (DrCribbens simply chose to ignore your prying), but I personally dislike it. Before then, I can only vaguely remember talks relating to sock puppets and a lot of personal information being brought up by you about 5cats (if i remember correctly). 
  I can see why sock-puppets bother you more than me - it matters to you who the person you're talking to is, and what you know about him/her from past interactions. To me it is less relevant, because I try to judge the argument on its own merits - it doesn't matter whether a good argument comes from a freshly created sock-puppet account or a long-time IAB contributor. The difference is that I might understand an argument better, if I can put it in the right context based on previous interactions. 
  Let me be clear, I don't think it's a big criticism of your interactions on IAB. In fact, by paying attention to personal information, you have a very good understanding of the IAB community. Fancylad would be wise to value your well-informed opinions. Your responses indicate that you appreciate people's privacy, and I hope you can see that occasionally you cross the boundaries. 
0
Reply
Male 10,079
boredhuman Umm, frankly, I can say with some confidence that Fancy already does. I'm in communication directly with him fairly regularly. I appreciate the compliment, but it seems you may need to know a little bit more about IAB and my role here.

I've been on IAB for the better part of a decade. I've had only two accounts: Squrlz4Sale and, after returning from an 18-month or so hiatus a couple years back, Squrlz4Ever. In that time, I've been a moderator and I've directly worked with two administrators who were running the site under Fancy. I was also involved in the beta testing of the current IAB platform. (I'm a software developer by profession; I've been in other careers, but that's been the gig for some time now.) I have never once had a sockpuppet account on IAB or posted anything other than as Squrlz, and I've never been banned, something not everyone can say when they've been around here as long as I have.

In terms of the nationalities, I disagree strongly. For most of the time IAB has existed--for years and years--every account had the user's nationality (or region, in the case of U.S. users) listed directly beneath the avatar. It was extraordinarily helpful. If you're debating the topic of, say, national healthcare, you can have a much better, more intelligent discussion if you know who's American, say, and who's British.

Fancy and I both miss the nationality information and I've submitted a proposal to add that feature to the current platform. Fancy wants to do it; when it will occur is another matter. I don't know the specifics, but the website is only now beginning to find its legs again after going independent from its previous owners, meaning funding for optional software development is tight.

When you were talking about rummaging through people's trash in that thread, I had no idea what you were talking about. Asking a person what country he or she is from is by no means prying, in my opinion, despite the fact that one user--Monk--often acts very cagey about it. (But then, let's be honest: Monk acts cagey about a lot of things.) I can see no legitimate reason why a person should refuse to divulge his or her nationality on here, particularly when they already have a fair amount of anonymity to begin with.

In terms of sockpuppets, I again disagree strongly. (I'm not trying to be contrary here; it's just that your positions on nationalities and sockpuppets could use a little more consideration on your part, if you'll pardon my saying so.)

First of all, sockpuppets are a violation of IAB's Terms of Service, which is no small thing. No one is supposed to be using more than one account at a time. This is for a host of ethical reasons.

  • A person having multiple accounts can cast several upvotes or downvotes on every comment, thereby targeting specific users he or she dislikes. If every comment you make winds up having a "-5" vote beside it 15 minutes after you post it, it has a definite chilling effect. You might think you're offending a whole group of users when, in fact, you're being targeted by just one dishonest individual.

  • A person having multiple accounts can also gang up on an individual, thus: Puppet1: "You're position is uninformed." Puppet2: "Exactly. In every thread, he does nothing but show how ignorant he is. I'm glad I'm not the only one recognizing it." User1: "See? I'm not the only one on here who thinks you have no idea what you're talking about." Et cetera. I hope you can see the many, many possibilities for abuse here.

  • Similarly, a person having multiple accounts can also puff up their own account, thus: User1: "The Eagles is the best team in the NFL, beyond question." Puppet2: "User1 is right. Those people who have been disagreeing with him are obviously just jealous of how much he knows about the game." By using this technique, one user can magnify his influence across the board by giving other users the impression that he is held in high esteem by several users.

  • Even more troubling, a user who makes a sockpuppet account can create a fictional identity to help him advance an agenda. For example: User1 (from, let us say, the United states): "Socialism is evil and any country that practices any version of it will wind up in the garbage dump of history, sooner probably than later." Puppet1: "User1 is absolutely right. I'm from Sweden and I can tell you I have seen my country become an absolute shithole. Any liberal Americans who say otherwise are ignorant." You can see how dishonest that approach is, right? Any fellow American is likely to think, "Well, gosh, if the guy is from Sweden and he says his country is a shithole, I guess he would know better than I. So I'll be quiet."

This comment is already fairly long, and I haven't even gotten to your earlier comment yet, so I'll wrap things up here. I've left out any references to specific accounts in an attempt to prevent this discussion from getting sidetracked.

I'll be addressing your other comment in the next hour or two. (Life on this end intrudes.)
0
Reply
Male 42,934
squrlz4ever Except I don't have ANY sockpuppets, fuck-wad, and you do.
You have less evidence of my 'puppets' than I have of yours.
Only Fancy knows and I've openly said many times he has my permission to tell everyone and anyone exactly how many accounts I have: one.
You can shove your delusions up your ass, all you have is lies, all you DO IS LIE and you know it.
-1
Reply
Male 1,540
squrlz4ever "it seems you may need to know a little bit more about IAB and my role here." Yeah, I didn't know any of these details. I joined less than a year ago, after lurking for several years.

Nationalities:
  Similar to gender, it would be useful but unnecessary information, in my view. The scenario you describe could easily be resolved by simply stating that they have experienced [insert country here] healthcare. There's no need for a flag being present on all comments, so that 1/100 comments it saves one sentence. Don't get me wrong, if people choose to reveal their gender/nationality /other private information, then I don't have a problem with that. Currently, they can write anything they want about themselves on their profile page.
  Based on conversations with other IAB members, I do know individuals who have good reason to refuse divulging personal information for all to see. I'm not opposed to having optional nationality flag assigned to an account - i'd probably just leave it blank.

Sock-puppets:
  You bring a lot of good points about the problems with sock-puppets, and I agree with all of them. I'm glad the terms and conditions state: "you must not... impersonate or misrepresent your affiliation with any person or entity." I completely agree that they bring chaos and damage the community. My point was that sock-puppets do not bother me personally.
  The comment counter is a great tool to welcome new users, and to identify newly created sock-puppets. Checking the history of a user can also reveal a lot about them. There was one user, whose comment history showed exclusively hateful comments bashing other people, and complaining about IAB going downhill. Thankfully I haven't seen that user in a while.
  I'd rather not participate in sock-puppet witch-hunt. Regardless whether 5cats uses sock-puppets or not, the way he was treated in the recent post borders on harassment. I just looked through the comments - it's the ugly. I'm not surprised by his ugly pictures and comments in response. There appears to be a lot of bad blood from way before I arrived to this community. 

I'd like to help make IAB a better place. There are many facets to what would constitute "better." For example, I personally value diversity, so I do believe that 5cats does make IAB better in that sense. 
Do you know what makes IAB better as a business from the financial perspective? Is it, as markust123 suggests, based on clicks? What is 'good' content from financial perspective? A well thought out post that provides a well justified conclusion on a relevant topic, or outrageous click bait on a controversial topic that leads to endless, heated debate? 
What do you think would make IAB better? 
0
Reply
Male 42,934
boredhuman Not only do I not have any puppets? I cannot vote up or down on my platform: IE. IDK if it's just me or anyone using IE, but there it is.

If I did? I'd still not do what these "people" do: upvote hate-speech and downvote reasonable comments.

Rather Ironic that the one pretending to "be opposed to hate" is himself the ringleader OF the IAB Liberal's Hate Machine.

IAB gets a lot of non-signed in viewers who never comment. I don't think they can +1/-1 either? No idea.
-1
Reply
Male 1,540
5cats Let me start out by saying: many IAB members do not trust you - I hope it does not a surprise you.
Trust takes time to earn and is easily lost. You play loosely with facts and routinely accuse others of lying.

Personally, I don't care whether you have sock-puppet(s) or not. However, it is still against the rules to: "impersonate or misrepresent your affiliation with any person or entity". Getting angry and lashing out at the accusers will not help matters - they won't believe anything you say anyway.
Why don't you confront moldysod, for example? Have you looked at his comment history? He's a troll, who hasn't contributed any posts, and regularly abuses other members. He is probably enjoying himself making you miserable. Do you think of moldysod and thething911?

"Why would I use a puppet?"
There are many possible reasons. Role play as a different person. Have the freedom to say what you want, without worrying about the consequences. Saying things you don't mean. Having a fresh start. 
You have a long history with IAB - 42,675 under your name is impressive. People know you, which can have both good and bad consequences. 

I don't want to participate in the puppet witch-hunt, and I don't believe there is conclusive evidence. However, I do believe you may use sock-puppets - it makes sense to me - but I don't know for sure (paint me Agnostic Puppeteist)
0
Reply
Male 42,934
boredhuman In fact, I've had several disagreements with thing911, yet Markust regularly accuses me of being him... facts don't matter to these people. The truth serves no purpose to them: only the slandering is their goal.

Of course "some people" don't trust me, I don't truth them either! this is the internet, trust is a rare thing indeed!!

I have no puppets. I would indeed "argue with myself" to "prove it's not me" regularly. I'd also be very careful to use "different language" and expressions. I'm not an idiot, if I used puppets THEY'D NEVER SUSPECT IT. Lolz!

The ONLY reason why I am accused is: I caught 2 of them red-handed and showed my evidence. They each claimed "I said..." when in fact it was their puppet who said that! (one also claimed 'you told me...' when I'd said it to the puppet, double-catch! That's the only reason I noticed it at all!) 
ONLY after that did the topic of me having puppets arise... mostly from one of the puppet masters who got caught. And from a known puppet user who was a hate-troll too, of course.

I mean, obviously there are puppets, Wilt C? Not real.. and not me either :-)

Thanks for your time and advice (I did clean up that comment a bit). You have been admirably polite of a very thorny issue, +1 internets for you! (I cannot upvote due to using IE, as I mentioned before)
-1
Reply
Male 10,079
boredhuman Due to the hour, I'll keep this brief.

1. Do you know what makes IAB better as a business from the financial perspective?

Any business like this is driven by pageviews. The more views, the more money. It's that simple.

2. What do you think would make IAB better?

That's the easiest question you've asked me all night: good moderators.

A good moderator needs to understand what sockpuppets are and have the savvy to recognize them. He also needs to be able to recognize that when a user uses a sockpuppet to state "Watch your shit cuck boy," not a week after telling the recipient of that threat to kill himself with a graphic showing how to slit one's wrists, he's verging on making terroristic threats and likely to elicit scorn from other users.

Hope this helps.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
boredhuman He keeps 'files' (plural) on me. He saves what HE considers to be (obscene) material, yet he has them, not me. He falsely accused me of a pile of nonsense based entirely on his imagination. He flat out refused to budge an inch on any of the lies, even though others pointed out I was telling the truth, or that he was speaking nonsense. (one of his 'proofs' was that I 'didn't deny it fast enough'. Keep in mind I ignore him, and only noticed at all because another person was commenting about it! Either way, 6 hours delay is not a confession of guilt! It means I was doing something else! But NOT for him, he still claims that as PROOF positive...)

He uses (or has used) puppets because I ignore him. Several others do so also. I caught 2 of them in just a few days when they mis-spoke and said I'd said something to them... when I'd said it to a puppet. Since, you know, I generally ignore them. Other puppets are plain and obvious...

Why would I use a puppet? No one ignores me and if they did I'd be VERY HAPPY about it! I say what I think right here under my own name, and don't care what the IAB Liberals think, except the few nice ones. No reason for me, lots of reasons for them though.

He doesn't appreciate MY privacy, accusing me of horrible crimes based on NOTHING BUT his fantasies and encouraging others to call the police on me? That's not my idea of "respect" ok? That's "Swatting" and it's illegal.

This is why I try very hard to ignore his dozens of unsolicited comments and get rather angry with his bullshit accusations. 
-1
Reply
Male 1,540
5cats I remember (vaguely) these accusations from ancient forum posts. I'd rather not dig into it, and I don't need you to give specifics. I would strongly suggest not to discuss these accusations, and delete them from your text above and any comments you made recently.

My guess is that these accusations originated from you revealing a bit too much of your private information from posts or comments, and the members mercilessly used it against you. In the process of defending yourself you probably said even more personal things you shouldn't have.

It's in your best interest if people forget these ancient, dirty (and wrong) accusations. It was your fault making your private information public by posting it. If people keep bringing these things up, don't get angry. Just state that the accusations are unfounded, and ask them to kindly respect your privacy. You should not engage people and try to prove your innocence or discredit them. 

If people keep harassing you, throw the Terms and Conditions at them:
"You must not post ... untrue, misleading, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, invasive to another person’s privacy or protected data, hateful, or racially or otherwise objectionable;"
They might rightly point out that you violate these rules - but that doesn't mean they should violate them!

What happened in this thread is ugly: a bunch of people ganging up and harassing you. Personally attacking IAB members will not stop this shit. There are rules on this forum, and they protect you too. Use them, don't abuse them. 
I'll post my views on sock-puppet in reply to another post. 
0
Reply
Male 42,934
boredhuman In fact he accused me of HIDING "personal information" which he somehow decided should be public knowledge...
In fact? it WAS public knowledge! It was right there in my public IAB profile which we used to have!
Several IABers said they knew all about my (former) profession, that I talked about it often.

He still refuses to budge on that accusation. To this day! There is not one shred of proof in what he says, not one person agreed with him. Not one person denied my evidence.

I've TRIED to ignore and forget, but HE keeps bringing them up! And encourages others to also spread the lies too, which they gleefully do since they are filled with hate just like he is.

Then he invents NEW LIES and spreads those too... it never ends with him, he just keeps attacking no matter what I do. This has gone on for many years now.

I've been repeatedly attacked on IAB for being disabled. Being it... think on that. Fancy did nothing. It happened a couple of times this month, although the worst (repeat) offender has stopped, others still remember the falsehoods. I don't even bother to notify Fancy any more, waste of time.

I've done all that. Reasoning? With hate-trolls who view any reply as weakness? Didn't work.
Ignoring it all? It just spreads and then more people started believing it because "I wasn't arguing against it"...

What happened on that thread is NORMAL for many IAB Liberals here. It has gone on for years now. They won't stop (although one did! That's encouraging actually!) and Fancy won't lift a finger to stop them (that I'm aware of anyhow).

Thanks for your concern and actually trying to help. That's encouraging also! :-)
-1
Reply
Male 1,540
5cats Look, I don't know if you're up for it, or how deep your hate for squrlz4ever is, but I'd suggest editing your comments to remove the recent ugly pictures/comments aimed at him. They don't show you in good light at all, and they damage IAB. 

My guess is that many liberals are tired of refuting your posts, and want to get rid of you by enraging you, so you start breaking rules and get banned. In my view that's the wrong approach. Liberals and conservatives need to learn to talk to each other, argue with each other and find solutions together - this toxic bipartisanship is what's tearing the US apart. 

Don't make it easy for them to silence you. Show good faith, and maybe squrlz4ever will reciprocate by promising to respect your privacy in regards to your ancient history. 
0
Reply
Male 1,203
boredhuman The issue with free speech and 5Cats has not been satisfactorily addressed in my opinion. 

Free-speech does not mean one can say whatever one wants to at any time. There are limits, and these limits have precedence in our judicial system. So defending 5Cats' freedom of speech necessarily entails likewise holding him accountable to the consequences and limitations of such, else we are not really defending this freedom, merely the parts of it we find convenient. 

It is an interesting question to ponder who is the "authority" or "judiciary" in this context. The easy answer is fancylad, but he has a conflict of interest since censorship impacts business. 

Thus, the authority is implicitly left to the participants, and we argue over what constitutes true statements, obscenity, hateful speech, and speech owned by others. All of which may or may not be covered under freedom of speech depending on context (there are also others).

It is possible that squrlz (or I) have been culpable of violations in the attempt to prosecute 5Cats. But to perform this prosecution is not intrinsically a violation against him, but instead an application of the very right itself.  
0
Reply
Male 1,540
BuckeyeJoe "The issue with free speech and 5Cats has not been satisfactorily addressed in my opinion." Agreed, it has not. In this post I urged 5cats to go into damage control mode. I have addressed free speech in previous post with squrlz4ever: I'd suggest SEP Freedom Speech article as a starting point.

"our judicial system." Not sure what exactly you refer to here. 5cats is Canadian, this site is in the US. IAB Terms and conditions are certainly relevant, and I've quoted them to 5cats and even implied that he has broken them. What do you refer beyond that?

"The easy answer is fancylad, but he has a conflict of interest since censorship impacts business" Not only that. I believe 5cats posts and comments have generated plenty of "clicks," so he has indirectly contributed to IAB's financial success.

"But to perform this prosecution is not intrinsically a violation against him, but instead an application of the very right itself." Let's formalize the proceedings! Put 5cats on e-trial where fancylad is the judge, you/squrlz are prosecutors, and (largely liberal) IAB members are the jury. It would make quiet a spectacle, and a would yield a predictable outcome. (to be clear: I'm being sarcastic) What do you propose to be done? 

I largely agree with your points. I think 5cats has to be made accountable for his actions. I don't like seeing IAB members ganging up and executing their revenge for hateful and misleading things 5cats has written in the past. In the end, I'd like to see 5cats keep contributing, but practice better self-control (self-censorship) and follow the IAB rules. 
0
Reply
Male 1,203
boredhuman Well, just do a quick search on free speech and you can find a plethora of cases where this right was evaluated in a court room. The article you linked provides a reasonable discussion of many of the topics salient in the courts. My point was mainly to establish that free speech does not mean one is protected to say whatever they want - it has specific limits. But it appears you are already aware of this.

In the formalism of the IAB proceedings, everyone is on-trial and everyone is the jury - fancylad has a COI and cannot participate. If the majority of commenters agree the speech is hateful, etc., then, well, it is rather self-policing. Albeit poorly.

Ganging up and executing revenge would be a separate charge, and presumably you would have to effectively prosecute those involved. That is in essence what you are doing, I suppose.  
0
Reply
Male 10,079
5cats This is so wildly distorted I would actually be dropping my jaw if I wasn't already familiar with 5Cats and his modus operandi. I don't have the time to respond at length now, but I'll be back later. What fun. ~rolls eyes~
0
Reply
Male 42,934
boredhuman No, he makes comments at or about me regularly, sadly. I see them in the Notifications but almost never bother to read them. They are almost always the exact same shit, sometimes even worse. Not stalker-level, not yet...

His latest obsession that I use sock puppets has, of course, been parroted by other ignorant IAB Liberals and thus is truly annoying. It is a lie, flat out, he has NOTHING to base it on except his own dementia. Same for his various previous accusation: he's sick.
-3
Reply
Male 588
squrlz4ever When I read this I wasn't sure if you are serious or not. How do you define hate speech? Speech you disagree with? Gerry1of1 is right, there are plenty of similar comments from both sides. What was it about this one that set you off? I don't use the term "hate speech" because it's just another trendy label to get people riled, but I'd like to see how you define it, and if you believe you apply it without prejudice.
1
Reply
Male 42,934
DerryNH He's serious, he's lobbied for me to be banned, censored or restricted for over a decade now...
-3
Reply
Male 6,337
5cats bro, your words "You know how to make IAB fun again? Get rid of all the hate-spammers who ruin every single post they can. And all their puppets too"   BEHOLD THE GIANT HYPOCRITE 5CATS.  you must have short term memory loss or you are just plain daft.
1
Reply
Male 42,934
rumham Telling the truth, sticking only to the facts and not passing value-judgements makes me a 'hate troll' now?
Then you are just a joke. How sad to be you, clutching so desperately at straws, BEGGING for attention! Sad.
-4
Reply
Male 6,337
5cats SAD!   heres your cross and some nails, you suffer for us you gentle giant
0
Reply
Male 10,079
DerryNH Piece of cake. Hate speech is any speech that works to dehumanize a group of people. Some examples:

Jews are all greedy. Never trust a Jew when it comes to money. Or anything else for that matter.

or

Gays are a cancer on society. Every fiber of their being is consumed with immorality. They don't think like you or I do.

or

It's impossible to have a rational debate with liberals. All they do is lie.

I hope that helps you understand the term.

As for your question as to whether I apply the term without prejudice: I hope I do. I'm not infallible, so it wouldn't surprise me if hate speech that targets any group I'm a part of jumps out at me more than others.

But I really don't understand this notion of Gerry's and, it would seem, yours also, that any objection to an injustice is invalid unless one has objected to all injustices. That's bullshit.

If you came into a police station to report an assault that you just witnessed, how would you respond if the police officer replied, "Well, I know for a fact you witnessed a hit-and-run car accident last week and didn't come in here to report that. So you can turn around and walk right home with this report of an assault of yours."

Again: That's bullshit.

So let me ask you directly: Are you okay with IAB posting primary content--that is, articles, as opposed to comments in threads--that states that liberals do nothing but lie?
2
Reply
Male 588
    I never said that your objection is invalid. I saw the term hate speech used to describe a comment, and then used to try to persuade the person who runs this site to remove it or refrain from allowing posts that meet that description. This was a particularly strong objection and I don’t recall you advocating censorship in the past. So yes, I took notice of it. I don’t believe that an objection to an injustice is invalid unless one has objected to all injustices, but what  IS invalid is when that objection advocates the removal of the offending comment or the request that someone  monitor and regulate what we see here, while letting similar content slide. I’d rather see people get pissed off and challenge that view in a well-reasoned manner. I know what hate is, and I’ve seen too many false definitions of “hate speech” to be certain of how it’s defined by the user of the term. 
  As far as what I’m OK with, I’m OK with IAB posting articles that say liberals do nothing but lie. I’m also OK with IAB posting articles that say conservatives do nothing but lie. I’ve seen posts that attempt to dehumanize my nationality, my religion, and my race; but I’d rather see them posted and challenged than have them kept from view using one person’s standards. Squirlz, you have the intelligence to challenge comments you disagree with, and I’d rather see that than a sanitized version of IAB.  
 

0
Reply
Male 10,079
DerryNH We disagree then. I don't want to be associated with a website that posts articles that dehumanize groups of people, be they conservatives, liberals, African Americans, Jews, gays, Muslims, women, or what-have-you.

I don't think that's an unreasonable standard to ask of IAB. I don't subscribe to magazines or newspapers or YouTube channels that publish hate speech. I don't belong to any social groups that promote hate speech. I wouldn't belong to any political party that uses hate speech.

Why would I want to spend time on a website that does?
2
Reply
Male 588
squrlz4ever IAB is diverse in its content and users. It does tend to lean in a particular direction, but the opportunity for debate is always there. I think that's healthy, and I don't mind having my convictions questioned.  

  If a decision is to be made as to whether or not you see content that you don’t think should be here, that decision should be yours only. I don’t want to see someone deciding that for everyone. There are exceptions of course, such as bomb-making instructions or anything that advocates or defends harming children. But most of it is fair game for discussion. 
 
  If IAB ever became an orgasmic cluster of people who do nothing but stroke each other’s egos and agree with every comment they see, I’d never come back. And you could keep the gorilla suit. 
0
Reply
Male 42,934
DerryNH Every single day, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy breaks into his residence, turns on his computer and forces him to read things he doesn't want to read on IAB!!!

(That's him at the desk on the right there, eh?)
-2
Reply
Male 588
DerryNH paragraphs work now?
1
Reply
Male 42,934
DerryNH Not unless you hit the Enter key twice and the Space Bar twice too...
Or it just comes out like this :p
-2
Reply
Male 46,107
squrlz4ever   Objection overruled. Because you don't object to the conservative bashing.

-2
Reply
Male 1,961
Gerry1of1 Yeah he does.
1
Reply
Male 42,934
Gerry1of1 Amen! Raise the roof! This sort of one-sided demand for 'objectivity' and 'balance' and other buzzwords are extremely selective, it seems. they only apply to the "conservative right" and never once to the "liberal left".

One rule for me, another for thee - DNC Motto.
-8
Reply
Male 10,079
Gerry1of1 Please point me to primary content on IAB that states "We can't have a rational debate with conservatives since all they do is tell lies" or something similar. If articles have been published on IAB with similar statements about conservatives--or any group of people, for that matter--I'm unaware of it.

Granted, IAB has published many articles that bash Trump. I have, in fact, objected to their frequency. Similarly, back when Obama was president, IAB published many articles that bashed him. But presidents enjoy extraordinary powers and they are subject to extraordinary scrutiny and criticism; it comes with the territory.

Attacking groups of people (or squirrels), however, is an entirely different thing.

Objection reconsidered and sustained, thank you.
1
Reply
Male 939
squrlz4ever not primary but your the source 


It rubs me the wrong way to see outsiders who seem to have little idea of what's going on in the country make the kind of callous remarks I'm seeing in this thread. I get the sense that most of the people making these dismissive statements have an ideological chip on their shoulders.

I took that at the time to mean. 'Cant have a rational debate your ideological' Because I disagreed with you about Venuazala in apportioning a collective guilt on society that created Chavez and Maduru directly leading to todays problems. I countered your comment in a less blunt  way and fleshed out what i had said. But hey anyone who disagreed about Chavez is ideological knows nothing and you choose not to continue. 
0
Reply
Male 10,079
jayme21 Okay, so that was about a month ago. There was a video of a band of Venezuelans who were attacking a cow in a field because they're starving due to the country's chaos, corruption, and food shortages.

I was seeing dismissive comments along the lines of, "They only have themselves to blame," "How's that Socialist paradise working out?", "Sucks to be them," and (your comment) "You get what you vote for." As I stated, those comments struck me as callous and I felt that most of the people making the statements seemed to have an ideological chip on their shoulders.

How is that a problem?

In the first place, as you've already acknowledged, we're talking here about a comment in the threads, not primary content. In the second place, how on Earth does my comment dehumanize a group of people? Hate speech is what I objected to in this thread and I see no evidence of it whatsoever in the comment of mine you quoted.

At the time, I read your reply and gave it due consideration. I'd said my piece and you said yours. Sensing that we weren't going to agree, I moved on.

I probably should have acknowledged your comment, Jayme, which was well-written. I'm sorry if I offended you by leaving the thread without doing so.
-1
Reply
Male 939
squrlz4ever i conceded the primary post point it was in comment form.  Your second point shifts goalposts. 

In the second place, how on Earth does my comment dehumanize a group of people? Hate speech is what I objected to in this thread and I see no evidence of it whatsoever in the comment of mine you quoted.

Who ever said it did? 
Gerry1of1 Please point me to primary content on IAB that states "We can't have a rational debate with conservatives since all they do is tell lies" or something similar.

Which i stand by you said something similiar. People had an ideological chip on their shoulder no rational debate to be had repeated again.

people making the statements seemed to have an ideological chip on their shoulders.

Sensing that we weren't going to agree, I moved on.

As for bluntness this is IAB not the height of academic debate. The amount of times you and others have cursed 5cats and been cursed proves that. I was more than happy to expand on it hence a more thorough reply to you when engaged and insulted. I elaborated on the 'get what you vote' for comment and stand by it with the added context given previously. 
You self admittedly weren't and presume as you quoted it with no context still dont want to. Note i quoted your context "callous remarks" part to give context why you said what you did. You've just left the original blunt comment without the given subsequent reasoning. 

I was not responding to your hate speech argument. I highly doubt you would care what I would say or want a rational debate on the subject. Evidenced by grouping my quoted comment with others and not providing the context i gave. And then attacking a point not made about dehumanization. That is not engaging in rational fair debate. 

In I am merely pointing to a hypocritical comment about rational debate from yourself. Again I concede it was not a primary post but i would hazard that appears a technicality argument on how you framed the debates narrow moral ground. 
0
Reply
Male 10,079
jayme21 Honestly, I don't even know what your complaint is at this point. You're nursing a grudge, obviously. Why exactly I don't know.

I never said in that Venezuela thread that you or anyone else was incapable of having a rational debate, nor did I say that all you do is lie. Repeat: I never said you or anyone else was incapable of having a rational debate, nor did I say that all you do is lie.

In fact, I never accused you of lying once, and if you'll notice in that remark of mine to Gerry, the clause about "all they do is tell lies" is the most important part of the statement.

What I did say was that you and others seemed to have an ideological chip on your shoulders. You, yourself, in your response, admitted as much: "I do have a chip on my shoulder" you wrote (my emphasis).

Again: How is any of this a problem?

I've already apologized for not responding to your comment last month. If you haven't noticed, when I'm on here, I'm often in the midst of three or four conversations, some of them pretty lively. But, yes, I should have acknowledged your comment.

It's obvious that you've got a long list of things you think I've done wrong or am doing wrong or that I'm about to do wrong. You say I've insulted you, that I'm hypocritical, that I've cursed 5Cats, that I'm not interested in rational debate.

You absolutely don't like me. I get it. Happy now?
0
Reply
Male 939
Repeat: I never said you or anyone else was incapable of having a rational debate.
You said similiar. Repeat you said similiar. Quoted you saying similiar. 

You say I've insulted you, 
Well you did.

that I'm hypocritical, 
Entire thread was for this and provided sources quotes to that effect. You opened the challenge.

 that I've cursed 5Cats,
You deny you ever have? Dont actually care, dont see why you care about this. Was in relation to saying the level of conversation on IAB at times.  Said you and others curse him and he curses you. No singling out there...

 that I'm not interested in rational debate.
From my interactions havent seen it. 

Example from latest comment

What I did say was that you and others in that Venezuela thread seemed to have an ideological chip on your shoulders. You, yourself, in your response, admitted as much: "I do have a chip on my shoulder" you wrote (my emphasis).

I admitted to having a chip
I do have a chip on my shoulder my friend from law school and her family were lucky enough to escape (with nothing) when Chavez were in power. My other friend worked for Human Rights opposition think tank again during the Chavez era for 6 months.

Not ideological youve quoted me out of context again to further a false charecterisation. Big difference between ideological chip and a chip.  Thats why id say its not rational debate.

Youve argued against points not made (see previous comment when yoy make point 2) and quoted out of context. 

And 
Honestly, I don't even know what your complaint is at this point. 
 You challenged someone to show something you dont do. I admittedly rudely stepped in to demonstrate you had. 

0
Reply
Male 10,079
jayme21 How have I insulted you? By stating that you had a chip on your shoulder--something you stated that, indeed, you had?

Please: Tell me how I've insulted you.

You've completely changed what I've said to Gerry to suit the purposes of this grudge you seem to be nursing.

To Gerry, I said the following: "Please point me to primary content on IAB that states 'We can't have a rational debate with conservatives since all they do is tell lies' or something similar."

The most important part of that statement, which you've decided to ignore, is "since all they do is tell lies." I never said you do nothing but tell lies. In fact, I never said you lie at all.

I honestly don't know what your complaint is. Furthermore, I don't see the point in continuing this dialogue because none of this has anything to do with the topic that was under discussion, namely hate speech.

Since it seems your list of complaints against me is endless, I'm happy to give you the last word. Just don't start attacking me again a month from now for not responding.

Have a nice evening.
0
Reply
Male 939
The most important part of that statement, which you've decided to ignore, is "since all they do is tell lies." I never said you do nothing but tell lies. In fact, I never said you lie at all.

Fair point.  I did not give that perhaps as much emphasis as it deserved. Id still say thrust of thread is the same as its similiar but you didn't explicity say lie i concede my point does stretch it and not everyone would agree.  I apologise if you thought i was putting words in your mouth in that way. Maybe start with reasoned counter points next time. 
0
Reply
Male 293
All the liberals do is lie?  The conservatives claim that liberals want to take everybody's guns away. Conservatives claim that any proposal on guns is an attack on the Second Amendment
1
Reply
Male 2,799
david-morris   Truth is that most draconian rules to control guns come from the left. In places that guns (in America) are regulated the most, has done little to stop illegal gun ownership or crime, it only stops law abiding citizens from owning guns. And the second Amendment does give the right of every American citizen to own a gun, it does not make examples of reasons you cant own a gun. We have by constitutional law to own guns. In most countries that is not true. So change the Constitution and stop trying to stop the right to own guns by convoluted laws that try to make it unobtainable. No one on the right says there should not be a system of checks and balances.

In almost all mass shootings it can be traced back to two main problems, some one that has illegal guns or is mentally incompetent, or both (it kind of flies in the face that some one is mentally unstable just to do something like this) so maybe we should aim our laser like gaze on helping the mentally challenged among us that are prone to such unnatural attacks on society..

It is so obvious in this last attack that society failed on so many levels, even the people that took him in to try to help him failed.  There are so many things that could have helped,  study after study makes it clear that a nuclear family is best, mother and father there for the entire ride.  Five of the last seven mass shootings were carried out by boys that had no strong father figure. This problem is much more than "lets just take away all the guns".
  And unfortunately some would still slip threw the best works of mice and men.   


2
Reply
Male 293
casaledana The Right is so beholden to the NRA that they fight anything that would affect the sales of guns.  Go back to Ronald Reagan's comments from n guns, and you'll see how much it has changed in 30 years.  The Right has done a great job of brain washing a vast portion of the American voters that the Second Amendment is the only important Amendment while attacking the First Amendment on a regular basis
1
Reply
Male 2,799
david-morris    I am not beholden to the right to protect my Constitutional right to own a gun,(to be clearer the NRA did not give me the right to own a gun the constitution did) I am beholden to the right for protecting that right.  And this particular article does not attack my 1st amendment right so we are not talking about it. But if you want to deny that our first amendment rights are not under attack all you have to do is look at the protests on the collage campuses right now to see it, and the attacks on religion are as close as you're day time talk shows.
0
Reply
Male 293
casaledana Again, nobody is recommending that you give up your constitutional right to bear arms.  Modern firearms are as far removed from muskets as ICBMs are from cannons.  Where is the line on arms that can be owned?  Try operating an armed fighter bomber and see what Uncle Sam does.  That jet fighter is an "arm" as protected by the Second Amendment.  Honestly, an AR15 isn't going to be much help against an attack drone, so the protecting yourself from an oppressive government is moot at this point.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
david-morris Why didn't Obama do anything about it in 8 years? Other than a whimpy & useless PO he knew would be tossed out (unless Hillary won) once he was gone?

Ooooh, IC! The ONLY reason people can have an opinion that is different than yours is because they are brainwashed idiots!! Of course! So tolerant of you...
-4
Reply
Male 920
Why didn't Obama do anything about it in 8 years?

  • Obama sanctioned four Russian individuals, five entities, expelled 35 Russian Diplomats, and closed two Russian Compounds
  • Obama met with Mitch McConnell about issuing a joint statement on Russian Meddling - McConnell refused
  • Russia responded to the punishment by expelling U.S. Diplomats, and Trump thanked them
  • Trump Publicly encouraged Russia to meddle in the 2016 election, and now refuses to impose Russian Sanctions

I'm breaking my own rule here, I know - but man, you just open yourself up to being embarrassed so often, it's hard to resist.  Will you ever wise up?
2
Reply
Male 42,934
skeeter01 Um, wrong post? This is about 'gun control' and not about Russians... unless you're claiming the Russians somehow stopped Obama from doing anything about guns in 8 years? Idiot.

Or are you carrying over arguments from other posts? that's a bannable offense BTW...
-1
Reply
Male 920
5cats I’m not sure where my wires got crossed here.  You’re right... this was the wrong place to post this.  My bad.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
skeeter01 No worries then! Cheers.
0
Reply
Male 293
5cats Just yell your gibberish louder.  If you can't make your point, be loud, vulgar, and obnoxious 
1
Reply
Male 42,934
david-morris So you claim Obama 'did something' about gun crimes? 
OK: link it. Other than the ONE PO I've said he did, what exactly did he do?
Otherwise my comment is far from gibberish, it is the facts.
-2
Reply
Male 293
5cats I never made any claims about what Obama did about guns.  What I probably should have said was right wingers and the NRA did a great job of convincing their minions that Obama was going to take away all their guns.  Since that didn't happen, now you want to ask me what I claimed he did on guns.  I am confused by your logic, or lack thereof.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
david-morris Ok, I'll answer some of the (dumb) questions in the comments above:

- Modern is not an issue. The RIGHT to free speech is still covered even though there's 'modern tools' not mentioned in the Constitution, yes? Well then. A "well regulated militia" means properly run: capable of doing the job with the proper tools and training. In the past only white males were covered by that, yet it's different in modern times yes? Same for voting... you get it yet?

- A lawful US citizen can own a tank, with operational cannon and machineguns. I don't see why aircraft are any different. Nuclear weapons are covered by explosives laws, EZ. Next.

- Without the 2nd? The 1st is doomed. Look at every dictatorship and socialist nation in history: first they grab the guns, second they censor the press. Simple really, without fail.
-2
Reply
Male 6,329
david-morris Okay, so let's say it properly...conservatives who characterize all liberals as being "gun-grabbers", just because there are some who are, are liars. They lie to support their anti-liberal stance, understood, but they're still liars, plain and simple. It's no different from characterizing all conservatives as Hitler loving Nazis just because there are some who are.
I have no problem with there being citizens who own guns, as long as they're responsible about it. Too many, though, who think of themselves as responsible gun owners are not, leaving loaded weapons available where they can be stolen or, in many horrific cases, picked up by children who don't know that they're not toys. I also think there should be more in the way of appropriate control, although I admit I don't know how that would be done. I know there are currently way too many firearms in the USA to control them well. I also know that, to a good extent, that that's because enthusiasts have fought all control so hard for so long. I also understand that that was due to fear of the so called "slippery slope".  But if gun owners want to keep their right to own guns they may have to actually take part in helping to make such ownership safer or, in the name of safety of the public, they may end up losing it altogether.
1
Reply
Male 1,634
 But if gun owners want to keep their right to own guns they may have to actually take part in helping to make such ownership safer or, in the name of safety of the public, they may end up losing it altogether. 

What do you think the NRA is?  The NRA offers gun safety classes all across the country.  They attempt to teach people how to be responsible gun owners.  That's like the one thing they consistently try to do, educate everyone about gun safety.  They encourage everyone, whether you are pro-gun or anti-gun to at least learn about them and how to safely handle them.

Yes, they also try to ensure that law abiding citizen can continue to own guns.  Along with that, they actually support enforcing existing laws.  They agree that people like the kid that shot yup the school should not have been able to get a gun.
0
Reply
Male 6,329
waldo863 Years ago, I don't remember when exactly, gun owners fought against a proposed law to block the sale of either dum-dum or armor piercing bullets (it was, I think, one or the other not both), despite the fact that there is no appropriate reason for any general citizen to need them. This is the "slippery-slope" issue, of course, where letting them get away with one thing may let the next restrictive rule pass more easily, then the next, etc, with the possibility that the rules may become too restrictive for legal gun ownership (or whatever) to be a reality. I understand that. But the people fighting against the passage of that rule made themselves look like idiots for doing so to the rest of society because it was, after all, an appropriate rule.
There has to be some way to gain better control while still allowing people who should be permitted gun ownership to continue to exercise that right.
The Left saying that all conservatives want everyone to be armed while the Right claims that all liberals want all guns removed is obstructive to coming up with a way to make our society safer. It's exactly the same as all our politicians being hellbent on fighting for their respective parties rather than for the American people so that nothing worthwhile gets done.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
broizfam I think it was "Teflon coated" armour-piercing bullets. I thought "dum-dums" were restricted a while back?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet
Oh nope, just not allowed for armies. hunting bullets are mostly dum-dums eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-coated_bullet
Was just a gun-grabber ploy to get things banned because they "are scary" and not because they're actually inherently dangerous. Yes, a slippery slope by design.

There is a better way: arrest and punish the actual criminals, including the illegal aliens, who use guns in their crimes. Stop letting the get off lightly and they'll slowly use fewer guns in their crimes. Because those crooks will be in jail already ;-)

We don't want "everyone" to be armed. if a hippie wants to announce he has no guns and never will have one? Go for it!! Just don't expect any help from your armed, conservative neighbors... (although they'll still come to their aid, conservatives are nice like that eh?)

Liberals: tell OTHERS what they are "allowed" to do or not do.
Conservatives: want the freedom to do what THEY want to or not.

Simple really. Overgeneralization? yes it is, but still accurate enough.
-2
Reply
Male 6,329
5cats (Some) "Liberals: tell OTHERS what they are "allowed" to do or not do."
A lot of us just want people to stop telling us how to live our lives.
Plenty of conservatives out there are telling people what to do, or not to do, also. That's not liberal or conservative...it's just aggravatingly human.

0
Reply
Male 42,934
broizfam Generalization, look it up.
You yourself use 'all inclusive language' regularly. It's right there in your comment. It's how people talk, it is perfectly acceptable. Only a true snowflake would seek out speech elements as simple as 'broadly speaking' and try to censor control it.

Criminals are the ones much more likely to leave loaded guns around, especially when children are present. Along with drugs & etc. You think they're careful parents as they use and sell meth? Oxy? I think not. But those stats get lumped in with lawful owners to make all guns "look bad".
-5
Reply
Male 6,329
5cats No, I don't think it really makes all gun owners look bad, though I'd guess there are those for whom it does...just as there are those for whom the fact that some liberals want all guns removed equates to all liberals wanting all guns removed.
As to your comment about criminals more likely to leave their guns around, I'd bet big money that you're correct. The problem is that there seems to be more than there should be of non-criminal "responsible" gun owners  who do so, too.
1
Reply
Male 42,934
broizfam You just said it, you admit it is wrong... then you double down and say you're still right?
Ok then. Good to know you won't listen to a single word I say. Thanks for clarifying that.

More than there should be is one... how exactly do you propose we stop that? With more laws?  More unconstitutional restrictions? Fewer rights? Or perhaps with total confiscation (BINGO!)...
-3
Reply
Male 6,329
5cats There you go again, just making shit up to support your view. And making the same ridiculous assumption as always..."Or perhaps with total confiscation (BINGO!)..."
I'll say it yet again: I don't have a problem with responsible people owning guns. There are issues with too many people who only think of themselves as being responsible gun owners. There are certainly too many guns in this country making it too easy for them to find their way into the hands of people who own/use them for illegal purposes and I believe that, to a large extent, this is due to the fight by gun owners against any gun control for decades. It's time to find some way to start getting some control.

Or maybe you think we should just let everyone carry guns all the time. Let the body count begin...
0
Reply
Male 42,934
broizfam Again: the simple fact is the gun-grabbers are NOT the least bit interested in "common sense" anything. They have one objective and one alone: confiscation.
They are more than willing to pass bad laws to create MORE massacres in order to further their plan.
It is literally black and white here.
Thus if you support the grabbers? You support confiscation, period.

It's like you say you support 'a woman's choice" but oppose abortion entirely, ever. See how that doesn't make sense? Well supporting the grabbers is the same thing. They support owning guns, as long as no one (except themselves!) owns ANY guns!
-2
Reply
Male 6,329
5cats "Well supporting the grabbers is the same thing. They support owning guns, as long as no one (except themselves!) owns ANY guns!"
That was dumb. Actual "gun-grabbers" want there to be none in general society. But you're right that they want confiscation. They want to create more massacres? Nonsense. They want a stop to them like everyone else does.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
broizfam Then why do they pass laws which make it easier for mass killings to occur? Like in the latest case? Why do they endorse policies which make the public LESS safe and the criminals MORE dangerous? Like letting illegals convicted of serious crimes back onto America's streets?
I doubt that is just a coincidence...
-1
Reply
Male 42,934
broizfam There already IS A WAY to limit dangerous weapons: it has been in place in America for ages and NO ONE wants it removed.
Full auto and explosives are heavily regulated already.

Anything further is just a step towards total confiscation. Not One Step back on the 2nd Amendment, ever.

There are several ways to "get some control" like enforcing existing laws and expelling illegal aliens... I don't see how taking guns away from honest, law-abiding citizens is "the answer" to ANYTHING (except to confiscation of course!).

The 'lawful owners make it easy for criminals' argument is pure and utter bullshit. You ought to be smarter than that. 
Do the criminals steal heroin and cocaine from lawful citizens? Or do they import ALL of it over the border by the thousands of tons?? Same for guns if they wanted to, they already DO smuggle guns into America! Why would they stop if citizens had their confiscated? 
-2
Reply
Male 6,329
5cats "The 'lawful owners make it easy for criminals' argument is pure and utter bullshit."
Incorrect. They are at least a part of why there are so many guns here, and so many guns here is a part of why it's easy for criminals to get them. Expelling illegal aliens will stop schools from getting shot up right...oh, wait...none of them were shot up by illegal aliens were they? Yeah, there are illegal aliens who are criminals but there are many who come here because they want to work and make a better life for their families. That's how this country was built. Considering the school shootings were pretty much all done by white American born citizens maybe we should think about kicking out white American born citizens. In other words, the fact that there are criminals here who are illegal aliens should not reflect on all illegal aliens as being criminal, beyond the fact that they came here without due process.
Remember, the fact that some conservatives are Hitler loving Nazis doesn't make you one, too. The fact that some illegal aliens are felons and killers doesn't make them all so.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
broizfam I was talking about crimes and murders in general. illegals are roughly 4x more likely to become criminals (outside of their original crimes!) than "common folks" are. This is well documented.
NO ONE says ALL illegals are criminals, except, you have to admit, they are! I mean other than them being there illegally in the first place, and forgery and other crimes to stay there... aside from those crimes :-/ most are not.

Plenty of leftists and socialist love Hitler too: he was the leader of the National Socialist party, yes? Of course he opposed Stalin who was (and still is!) the DARLING of the left... so that split them up a bit.

Once people's guns are restricted? Those guns that are left will be MORE valuable on the Black Market and a HIGHER target for crime! I predict more guns will get stolen and thus used in crimes as a result. Also: smuggled guns will obviously rise dramatically too: you cannot deny this, right? They already smuggle guns into America illegally! make them more profitable and it is EZ to see the end result.
-2
Reply
Male 6,329
5cats "leftists and socialist love Hitler"???
That's just ridiculous. Hitler's government was a fascist regime. Total government control. Goes exactly against (actual) communism and liberalism.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
broizfam Um, communism IS ALL about total government control, eh?

 Modern Liberals are the new fascists, haven't you been paying attention lately? SJWs and BLM and all the rest aren't tolerant in the slightest! They RIOT when a gay legal immigrant with a coloured boyfriend tries to speak at their university, ok?

But you agree they still loooove Stalin (and Mao too). :-)
-1
Reply
Male 21,778
1) The first article about Aaron Feis I Googled brought up a CNN article which states in the first sentence of the second paragraph that he was also a securuty guard for the high school. No one is downplaying it.

2) The AR-15 may not technically be a "military-issued weapon," but it's, as Wikipedia describes, a semi-automatic version of the United States military M16 rifle. With a YouTube tutorial and a few bucks, you can convert it to fully automatic.

3) No one wants to overthrow the second amendment. People who are tired of hearing about American terrorists mow down people with military-grade weapons just want to make it a little more difficult for white males with "mental problems" to get their hands on them.
3
Reply
Male 42,934
fancylad 1. I had yet to come across it in newspapers and on the radio. :/ I had heard how he was a coach and teacher of course. That he was on duty as a guard was really news to me! Especially since he wasn't allowed to have a firearm.

2. That's already illegal. Do it and you'll lose your guns and get a criminal record. Already. So enforce existing laws, like I keep saying.

3. Yes they do. Feinstein, Hillary and many leading Democrats have openly stated this. They "would if they could" but they know that they cannot without getting massacred in the next election. Thus it is their goal to circumvent the US Constitution (ignore it) entirely.
 
No one is mowing down anything with "military grade" weapons, the hysteria is unbecoming to you, dude. There's been 1 full-auto weapon used in a massacre in what, 70 years? And that was by a cop.

Their goal isn't to stop "mental patients" from having weapons. Their goal is to take them away from mental patients, their families and even their friends! Because some relative went to talk about his/her depression? Dozens of people get their guns hauled away, never to see them again. THAT is the PLAN. It has already been attempted in California (was overturned in court), and proposed (but defeated) in New York, just two that I can recall.

This would have a severe 'chilling effect' on the very people who MOST need to seek psychiatric help! It would make things far worse, which is OK with the gun-grabbers because every sacrifice is worth it to attain their goal: total confiscation (for lawful persons, not the criminals or the very rich of course!).

Thanks for the nice post! Nicely presented, mildly edited for an improvement :-)
-3
Reply
Male 70
5cats 

1) I heard it literally within hours, so I don't know what you're listening to (fox? jones?). 

2) It's illegal, but there's no need for a civilian to have an AR15. Why is it illegal for a civilian to buy large quantities of plutonium or countless other weapons? Because ffs, it should be.

3) Bull. Shit. I noticed you linked....not a single reference to this because there isn't one. Here's her actual stance, although it seems like you have a tough time actually reading stuff and then not slanting it: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/. 

AR15s absolutely are military grade weapons. Full auto doesn't equate to military grade - anyone well trained doesn't need full auto. It's not the movies. You don't shoot 100 rounds a minute with what you carry for a ton of reasons. 

The goal is common sense laws, which people like you seem to be incredibly dense to. 
4
Reply
Male 42,934
devthep 1. CBC Canada. The Globe And Mail (Toronto-focused but occasionally other parts of Canada are mentioned)

2. Or ANY rifle LIKE an AR-15 then, right? Grab them all! Just to be sure ok?
Plutonium? Really now? :-> Why not slaves or baby parts or some other emotionally charged topic? Oh right, you approve of selling baby parts for profit...

3. I've seen her, in interviews (plural) clearly stating she'd overturn the 2nd if she could... (like if she were President for example) or she says the only solution is to repeal Heller: which is the same damn thing. Stuff like that is commonplace among Democrats, ok? Or are you saying she lied in those interviews?

THAT is bullshit. Then ANY rifle which fires 223 is ALSO "military Grade" too?? As are shotguns, pistols and so forth?? Bolt-action rifles like the Lee-Enfield 303 actually WERE military arms, gotta grab all of those too then eh? And since bolt-actions are now "military" by YOUR definition? ALL the rest of the bolt actions gotta go!!!

Bullshit. Plain and simple. Lies, myths and propaganda.
If it isn't 3-shot or full auto? It is NOT an "assault rifle" period, end of discussion.
-3
Reply
Male 6,503
5cats, “I had yet to come across it in newspapers and on the radio.”

That is because you don’t look at or listen to actual news, and go so far as to demonize it. If all you are looking at is partisan political propaganda then all you are getting is partisan political propaganda. The problem is between your keyboard and your chair.
5
Reply
Male 6,337
markust123 5cats mentality - i dont think the sun exists cause i won't leave my cave. so fuck off hate spammer!!!!
0
Reply
Male 42,934
markust123 See above, and stop pretending your imagination is real.

But ALL you ever look at is... partisan political propaganda! But YOURS is OK while MINE is evil... got it! O_o
-3
Reply
Male 6,503
5cats, “But ALL you ever look at is... partisan political propaganda...”

You can repeat that lie until you are blue in the face but it won’t make it true. I am very careful about the news sources I look at. I don’t pollute my mind wth the kind of garbage that you do.  And you can lie all you want about not looking at partisan sites but if that is true why do you post links to so many partisan sites? For instance, the three links in this very post are all conservative sources. Out of anyone on this site (left or right) you are the one living in the biggest partisan bubble. It’s why in the ten years I have interacted with you I have never seen you learn and grow. That can’t happen if all you listen to, read or watch are things that enforce your own view. 
3
Reply
Male 42,934
markust123 Then whya re you so uniformly and fundamentally WRONG on every issue, every time? And always "to the far left" side of it?
Huh, self-delusional is no way to be, dude.
-2
Reply
Male 6,503
5cats, “Then whya re you so uniformly and fundamentally WRONG on every issue, every time? And always "to the far left" side of it?”

When you are as far to the right as you are and listen or read so much partisan information as you do, of course center left people are going to look extreme left from that perspective. And of course the actual truth isn’t going to line up with the spin and misinformation you are fed throughout the day. Take a few weeks off from partisan politics. You’ll see what I mean. And you’ll Be happier.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
markust123 How about you stop telling leis about me and spreading unfounded gossip? You'll be happier too because I'm not going to take that shit silently...
-1
Reply
Male 6,503
5cats The only one lying is you, as usual.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
markust123 You can prove that? You can prove I use puppets? Do so!
Until then fuck yourself and stop telling unfounded gossip to others, it demeans only yourself.

And it violates IAB written polices on various things like harassment & etc...
-1
Reply
Male 6,503
5cats IAB’s biggest hate spammer is lecturing someone on violating the sites’s policy on harassment, and here I thought you had no sense of humor.
0
Reply
Male 5,344
fancylad I wish mine were a version of the M16. Where do you get those?
-2
Reply
Male 42,934
trimble Enlist young man! Uncle Sam wants you!
-2
Reply