In this episode, we find out Philip Seymour Hoffman
overdosing on heroin somehow proves that gun regulation doesn’t work.
Also, I’m getting really tired of people trying to convince
me they didn’t say what they said.
For fuck’s sake.
Enjoy…
Rush
See that, if they banned heroin it could save lives...
wait... wasn't that already illegal? ... I think I'm confused... [Directly equating the banning of heroin not completely
eradicating heroin with the banning of guns not being able to eradicate all
guns. Not only is this a false argument, but no one wants to ban guns. This
little fact is always ignored by gunfuckers. But how else could you pretend the
left is trying to turn America into North Korea if you don’t lie about it?]
Bill Mancuso
Aside from the fact that he did not want to "ban
guns," exactly how many innocent people did he massacre when he went on a
heroin spree?
[Rush and I must have posted at
the same time. I didn’t see his comment until Megan commented and brought me
back to the post. Otherwise, I would have addressed his amazingly intelligent
comment.]
Megan
A talented person is dead and to gloat about it because he
had a different political opinion than you is kinda fucked up. [That’s what I was thinking, too.]
Bill Mancuso
Heroin is illegal but Philip Seymour Hoffman died from using
heroin. That somehow means there should be no gun control laws since something
illegal can still be circumvented. So, by that flawless logic, if a law isn't
100% effective, then it shouldn't be a law. By that flawless logic, there
should be no laws against murder because people still murder; no laws against
rape because people still rape; no laws against stealing because people still
steal; no laws against jaywalking; speeding; rolling through stop signs;
driving while intoxicated; assault; breaking and entering; carjacking;
graffiti; trespassing; etc. Right? Or am I confused?
Mary
It's fucked up how hypocritical he is in preaching how to
save lives. If he doesn't want to be judged on his political standpoints, he
shouldn't give them. I think you're misusing the word "Gloat". [True, ‘gloat’ may not have been the most accurate word to
describe that meme. She should have said something more like,” A person is dead
and to use it as a vile prop to somehow connect it to your desire to fuck guns
just because he had a different political opinion than you is kinda fucked up.]
Mary
How can you respect anyone who has three kids and overdoses
on heroine? [He overdosed on a female hero?]
[Heroin is an addiction. Owning guns is a choice.
People addicted to heroin need help. People believing “good guys” with guns
battling “bad guys” with guns in the middle of a mall shoot-out somehow saves
lives need to wake the fuck up. I have incredibly more respect for addicts than
I ever would gunfuckers.]
Mary
And Bill, stop complicating everything....you waste your
time. [True, sort of. I waste my time on you, who
will never listen to logic or facts that contradict your misinformed opinions.
But there are people who might possibly read and even share my blog to use as
an educational tool to expose the ludicrously ignorant stance of the mindless,
corporate-protecting right-wingers whom I often debate.] All this
post was about is "Hypocrisy" .... It just so happens to include the
subject of banning guns, that was just an added bonus. ["Just
because I brought up guns, it doesn’t mean I was talking about guns!"]
He's just like all the other, "pay attention to me, I'm a celebrity, let
me pick something to stand for even though I'm a hypocritical douchefuck that
will end up taking my own life, with no regard to my own life, anyone I love,
or my children, with a heroine needle sticking out of my arm, [Must have been an incredibly thin female hero to be able
to poke her through his skin.] but the world should listen to me
because I'm a good actor"......... Seriously???
[The ill-conceived argument that
we should not listen to actors just because of their chosen profession can
logically be extended to include anyone in any profession. I should never
listen to stay-at-home moms, engineers, sports broadcasters, astrophysicists,
carpenters, truck drivers, soldiers, ad infinitum. Except, apparently, when a
corporate profit-protecting gun lobbyist is talking about limiting the sale of
guns to only include law-abiding citizens and convicted felons, convicted
rapists, convicted child molesters, those convicted of spousal abuse and those
on terrorist watch lists. Well, anyone, really.]
Mary
And why the fuck are we, as a society, always putting actors
and actresses on a pedestal? [Like Republicans do
with Ronald Reagan? On a fucking colossally high pedestal that in no way
represents the reality of his accomplishments? I think right-wingers are just
jealous that famous creative people are generally more liberal-leaning, which
is why they castigate them so badly, yet make that Reagan exception. And also
consider confessed rapists who shit their pants to get out of Viet Nam and
threaten the President and first lady with murder as their heroes just because
they’re famous. And also famous backwoods hate-mongering bigots. Those would be
Ted Nugent and the Duck Dynasty scumbags.] It's their job. That's
what they do. They have to earn my respect, just like everyone else does. Last
time I checked, they put their pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us
low-life douchebags. [No one has ever said actors
don’t need to earn respect. People who disagree with the things they say invent
that notion in an attempt to discredit what they say. And no one is forcing you
to listen to what they say – on or off the silver screen. I love Jon Voight as
an actor. I couldn’t give a flying dog deuce what he has to say outside of the
words the screenwriter gave him.]
**
**
Judy
It's obvious he had a drug addiction.... Let the man rest in
peace. [Some people understand.]
Rush
Yes Bill, you're confused... Nobody even hinted at doing
away with existing laws... It helps prosecute the bad guys... I'm just pointing
out the hypocrisy of someone who chooses to use his celebrity status to
campaign for new laws that we should all follow while choosing to ignore laws
already on the books... But I see your flawless logic of adding new laws for
criminals to ignore while it only hurts law abiding citizens... [What’s with all the ellipses? A simple period will
suffice with which to end your sentences, sir.]
Bill Mancuso
The meme brought up guns, not me. The meme says he wanted to
ban guns - that is a lie. The meme compared guns that can kill countless
amounts of people with one gun control advocate actor who killed himself with
drugs. That is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be if he shot himself to death. [You’d think, being experts at hypocritical performances,
that right-wingers would know how to present a simple example of hypocrisy. But
when an example isn’t available, they rely on their fallback position – the
straw man argument.]
Then, Rush made the direct connection between heroin being
illegal and Hoffman still being able to get it. Let's not pretend that wasn't a
direct jab at having gun control laws and criminals still being able to get
guns. [If it wasn’t, then it would be the first
recorded incident in history of gunfuckers NOT making that argument. I have
heard it at least a dozen dozen times from them.]
My point is that no laws are 100% effective. [Notice I’m the one who brought up that fact. This is actually the second time I've made this point in this thread. The first time employing sarcasm.]
They do, however, mitigate the problem. Gun control laws do, in statistical
fact, result in lower gun violence and death. Just like speeding laws do, in
fact, reduce the number of speeders.
And no, I'm not confused. I didn't suggest doing away with
existing laws, Rush. You did when you said heroin was banned because it saves
lives and Hoffman was still able to get it and kill himself with it. You were
explicitly suggesting a law was useless since it did not work to 100%
effectiveness. That's the illogical argument gun advocates use all the time.
Your statement about my "flawless logic of adding new laws for criminals
to ignore" points out clearly how you do not understand this fact.
And the fact that gun advocates keep lying and saying people
are trying to ban guns suggests they have no real argument. Background checks
have never stopped law-abiding citizens from getting guns. Just felons, the
mentally unstable and terrorists.
I have complicated nothing. You are arguing in circles to
blindly defend guns.
And Judy is correct. Being addicted to drugs or alcohol is not even remotely similar to wanting guns. This right-wing gun meme is ignorant all over
the place and is using the death of Hoffman as a ghoulish prop. Oh, wait, I
thought only Liberals used props?
Rush
Wow Bill... Again I never suggested getting rid of existing
laws... [No, you just made a direct comparison to
that end.] Yes, heroine is illegal [Female
heroes are illegal?] because as you can clearly see it does kill and
is highly addictive... which in the case of those without money to support
their habit can lead to other crimes such as robbery or burglary. Now what you
need to understand is that no law is 100% effective, [I
really do need to understand that. It’s not like I’m the fucking one who said
that or anything.] if they were there would be no crime... That
doesn't mean they are useless or that we should get rid of them... [Well, gee, that’s not the diametric opposite of the point you
were making at all. Remember when I said he was arguing in circles?]
Suggesting that is illogical and an attempt to redirect the intention of my
post... [“Now what you need to understand is that I
didn’t say what I clearly said.”] I believe criminals and mentally
unstable people prone to violence should not be able to legally obtain guns...
Does that mean they can't get them? Absolutely not, they get them illegally. So
I believe changing existing laws to make the capacity size smaller or ban certain
rifles makes no sense. Does that somehow offend your senses Bill? And by the
way, statistics show less violent crime in areas with more legally armed
citizens.
Bill Mancuso
Hoffman was a multimillionaire. I'm pretty sure illegal
drugs don't target poor people. [No matter how badly
you want to blame poor people for society’s ills, they are not the problem. But
really rich corporate people pay moderately rich politicians and news people to convince middle
class people to blame poor people.] In fact, as proven by that
"shaming the poor" scheme in Florida to unconstitutionally drug test
welfare recipients, their average drug use was lower than the national average.
Pretty sure I already made the point that laws aren't 100%
effective.
I did not attempt to redirect the intent of your post. You
said banning heroin could save lives, then pointed out that it didn't work.
That suggests you think there should be no laws if they don't work 100% of the
time. Or were you suggesting there should be more laws? Maybe I did misunderstand your point after all.
Yeah. It's not easy to obtain guns illegally, so let's give
up on perpetuating that myth.
[I’ll give you three guesses as
to which link is going to be completely ignored since it contradicts a
right-wing, gunfucker’s talking point. And the first two guesses don’t count.]
Yes, statistics show less violent crime in areas with more
legally armed citizens - if you believe the debunked bullcrap by John R. Lott
Jr, and cherry-picked statistics from a congressional study, as reported all
over right-wing media like Breitbart.com, FOX and Infowars, et al. Which, I see
that you do.
[Three more guesses. First two also
don’t count.]
No. My senses are not offended, Rush. Are you suggesting I'm
basing what I say on my emotions?
[The funny thing is, I
immediately saw his post and wrote my response, but I waited to post it. I
happened to be on Facebook at the time, but didn’t want to make it seem like I
was sitting around waiting for him by responding right away. When I came back
to it a little later, he had at some point went back and added the Breitbart.com article
to “prove” his point. I thought that was hilarious. So I added, “Which, I see
that you do.” They’re so easy to predict. It’s sad, really. But hey, at least
he tried. Most times, there’s no attempt on their part to back up their claims.
Even at that, it’s not like he’ll believe or even accept the facts. I know he
didn’t read the article I posted. That makes it easier to ignore.]
Rush
Bill, I'm not sure why you keep saying that... I've already
pointed out that no law is 100% effective [No, you
freaking didn’t. I did. You stole it from me like Jay Leno steals jokes. Nyah!]
and that does NOT mean I think there should be no laws... And no, i don't
suggest more laws are necessary either... I do however suggest that the current
laws should be followed. [They are. No background
checks are mandatory at most gun shows and online sales. That's the problem. Dipshit. But since the NRA keeps repeating 'current laws should be followed,' you just accept and repeat it like the dipshit you are.]
And yes, I'm suggesting that parts of your posts are based on your emotions...
Otherwise you wouldn't be so hurtful as to suggest that I'm a right wing guy...
I just have my opinion on gun control [based on
emotions contrary to fact] that they happen to agree with... [So hurtful…? Aww. I did not suggest he was a right-wing guy.
I said the gun meme is right-wing and I said he believes debunked lies that
right-wing media keeps repeating. I’ll say it now, though – I suggest that Rush
is a right-wing guy.]
***** ***** *****
I gave up. I was tired of talking in circles. Tired of the
“I didn’t say what I said” crap. Tired of everything indefensible being
ignored. Tired of sticking to hollow talking points. Tired of people who do
nothing but repeat debunked right-wing bullshit and claim to not be
right-wingers.
Tired of straw men.
More Guns Is Safer, Right? Missouri Has The Answer
Republicans love to accuse Liberals (I just go with the
assumption that everyone believes I’m a Liberal.) of legislating with their
emotions. The fact is, it’s the other way around. Republicans don’t like poor
people, so they cut their welfare – ignoring the fact that providing poor
people with food stamps boosts the economy. That is legislating by emotion. Same goes for their emotional stance on abortion, the post office, minimum wage, unions, voting rights, social security, health care, etc. Liberals generally legislate based on fact,
like the fact that providing poor people with welfare is, in reality, fiscally
responsible. To illustrate this point, Walmart just lowered their quarterly
expectations, specifically citing that the Republicans’ cut to welfare would
reduce the amount of money poor people will be able to spend at their stores. (I'm not going to get into the fair pay argument right now, but fuck Walmart.)
Gun regulation does save lives. For a statistically proven
fact. It doesn’t matter if people ignore that fact. It’s still a fact. Go find
the dozen+ blogs I’ve done about guns. All the information is there. I don’t
feel like doing the research again for the 70th time right now. This
mindless gunfuck mentality is getting goddamn fucking tiresome.
Mary has since scrubbed this thread from her Facebook page.
Sometimes, I really am surprised she hasn’t de-friended me
by now.
And no, that’s not her real name. None of the names ever
are. Except for maybe mine.
Good day.
Jonathan's Cochlear Implant Activation 8 mo., Rt Ear cont'd
No comments:
Post a Comment