Analytics wrote:If we may go off-topic beastie, doesn’t there exist a set of psychological conditions called “atypical empathic responses?” I don’t want this to come across as a personal attack against anyone—it’s a sincere question in an attempt to understand certain members of our community.
What I’m getting at is that if somebody has a neurophysiological inability to understand the points of view of other people in the same way that others have, say, dyslexia, it might come across as a lack of integrity. Is it possible that an actual neurological disorder could cause somebody to not comprehend that views different from one's own might be morally and intellectually reasonable?
Interesting. I'll have to look into that.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Analytics wrote:But it seems to me that we can’t have that discussion without first having a basic understanding of the incontestable record of what actually happened.
Is that kind of like the "incontestable record" of liberals concerning the Travon Martin case? Not to mention really anything they open their mouth on and pervert, lie, omit about.
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
Analytics wrote:But it seems to me that we can’t have that discussion without first having a basic understanding of the incontestable record of what actually happened.
Is that kind of like the "incontestable record" of liberals concerning the Travon Martin case? Not to mention really anything they open their mouth on and pervert, lie, omit about.
Are you worried that if we had laws stating that people with serious mental illness can't have guns because they are a danger to themselves and to others, that they'd try to take your guns away?
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
Analytics wrote:Are you worried that if we had laws stating that people with serious mental illness can't have guns because they are a danger to themselves and to others, that they'd try to take your guns away?
haa haa.... classic "diversion" tactic of liberals. You point out really the ONLY good thing about the bills lately, while ignoring all the bad. But really, that's not even "good" either because the Federal government shouldn't be involved. Who should and shoudn't have guns belong to local communities where the community decides it's standards and can judge it's people, not the entire might and unfeeling and unreasonable bureaucracy of the United States government. Good frigging grief....
This video explains some of the problems with this.
ldsfaqs wrote:haa haa.... classic "diversion" tactic of liberals. You point out really the ONLY good thing about the bills lately, while ignoring all the bad. But really, that's not even "good" either because the Federal government shouldn't be involved. Who should and shoudn't have guns belong to local communities where the community decides it's standards and can judge it's people...
So, if your neighbors feel that your personal armory isa danger to them, they have the moral authority to take away your God-given right to defend yourself with any and all weapons that you see fit?
What if, according to the standards and judgments of your own neighbors in your own community, your neighbors decided the community would be safer if you weren't armed? If your neighbors tried to take away your weapons, would you shoot them?
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.