@ #notallmen >=[

[dondon151]

Do you think the only thing I use my gun for is to hurt people and kill other animals? Do you think that is why I bought it?

Please, go on. Tell me what things anyone can possibly derive pleasure from and why.

do you use it to bake cakes? as a fleshlight substitute?

if you own a handgun, i'm assuming that you own it for the purpose of protection.

Edited May 28, 2014 by dondon151

[Esau of Isaac]

Target practice? Lol. No one can rationally compare the pleasure of owning and spending time with a dog to target practice.

do you use it to bake cakes? as a fleshlight substitute?

if you own a handgun, i'm assuming that you own it for the purpose of protection.

I can own it for the protection. I can own it for target practice. I can own it as a mere wall piece. Whatever the case, deciding what is comparable or pleasurable for me or anyone else is pathetically short-sighted. No one is forcing you to like guns, why are you telling me that I can't like them?

For the record, the analogy wasn't meant to be utterly parallel, but to illustrate the fact that banning something because of fringe elements is preposterous. No one thinks all dogs should be banned because some dogs kill people. There are millions of gun owners that go their entire lives without hurting anyone. Last I checked all of my family members are still bullet-hole free despite gun-ownership being a commonality. Yes, sometimes accidents happen. That's not cool. They're a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population, however, and even accepting that some people handle them irresponsibly, that doesn't mean I think they should be banned; just that owners should be well-educated and trained in their use.

[dondon151]

No one is forcing you to like guns, why are you telling me that I can't like them?

this is not entirely true. if guns are easily accessible to the point where i am significantly less secure without one (which may be true for where i have to go in order to complete medical school), then that really compromises my ability to make the choice that no, i will not own a handgun. if you allow other people to own guns, and i am at a clear disadvantage if i don't own one, then you're not giving me much of a choice!

it's like when christians say that i can choose to accept or reject god, but if i reject him, then i'll go to hell. some choice that is, except not owning a gun is not as bad. or maybe it's worse if i don't believe in an afterlife.

For the record, the analogy wasn't meant to be utterly parallel, but to illustrate the fact that banning something because of fringe elements is preposterous. No one thinks all dogs should be banned because some dogs kill people. There are millions of gun owners that go their entire lives without hurting anyone. Last I checked all of my family members are still bullet-hole free despite gun-ownership being a commonality. Yes, sometimes accidents happen. That's not cool. They're a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population, however, and even accepting that some people handle them irresponsibly, that doesn't mean I think they should be banned; just that owners should be well-educated and trained in their use.

you don't ban something because of "fringe elements;" you ban something because it's potentially more dangerous than it is beneficial. take the heroin thought experiment i proposed earlier, or replace heroin with landmines, or something.

EDIT: if the statistics have anything to say about it, i am totally unconvinced if you try to say that legalized gun ownership is more beneficial than it is dangerous.

Edited May 28, 2014 by dondon151

[Chiki]

I can own it for the protection. I can own it for target practice. I can own it as a mere wall piece.

Too bad people don't buy dogs for such trivial purposes.

Not everything is completely risk free. Dogs aren't risk free either. And we should ban things that do more harm than good, like guns. But dogs more than make up for that fact by making you happy, reducing work stress, helping you to stay in shape, making you healthy, and all sorts of things.

A freaking wall piece doesn't give anyone as much pleasure as owning a dog does, nor does it improve your health.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Chiki

[Tryhard]

From what I can see, he didn't have very many friends, despite his apparent material wealth. IMO, it looks like a socialization problem, and "not getting women" is a side-effect of that. I see a kid who didn't get what he wanted, and rather than work out the why, chose to listen to things that agreed with him, while demonizing anything that he disagreed with. I don't see a gender issue - I see someone who was mentally ill, had help, and refused it.

This. Maybe I'm wrong for thinking so, but I can't get off the thought that this is more a mental health issue then a gender issue. I think there is room for discussion on whether society spurred him on as a factor and what we could possibly do to change mentalities, though.

I have to say though, in other places because honestly it isn't so bad here, I've never seen an issue get so bitter, so heated, and so quickly.

And gun control/freedom to own a gun, really? Maybe it's because I'm from Europe, but I really don't see the US ever changing their tune on it. Regardless, it's brought up every time any of these mass shootings occur, and the same things are repeated over and over again.

e:

Omigosh I was apologizing for coming across as one of those #notallmen guys, I promise!

I wasn't railing, I thought I must have come across as terribly ignorant and tried to rectify that. I wasn't arguing or anything.

Man I can't seem to not come off like a jackass, can I? :(

I think it's just the fact that it should be obvious that not all men are rapists and murderers. But when trying to discuss how we should try to stop the ones that are, people come through with "but not all men are like that!". We should be aiming for 0%. I suppose that's where the frustration lies.

Though feelings of inadequacy through rejection, I think you're right about that. But that goes for any genders.

it's okay bro, chill out

Edited May 28, 2014 by Tryhard

[jiodi]

I think it's just the fact that it should be obvious that not all men are rapists and murderers. But when trying to discuss how we should try to stop the ones that are, people come through with "but not all men are like that!". We should be aiming for 0%. I suppose that's where the frustration lies.

Though feelings of inadequacy through rejection, I think you're right about that. But that goes for any genders.

it's okay bro, chill out

omg am I getting trolled now? Have my jimmies bled on to the internet for all to see?

How much more clear do I have to be that I'm not making that point. I'm not saying "not all men are like that". I'm not sure how else to put it at this point.

[Tryhard]

omg am I getting trolled now? Have my jimmies bled on to the internet for all to see?

How much more clear do I have to be that I'm not making that point. I'm not saying "not all men are like that". I'm not sure how else to put it at this point.

Sorry, I was just trying to reason why people would get upset for anything that sounds like "not all men", especially since it's got a lot of attention lately. I'm poor at words. I don't think you said anything terribly wrong, really.

(i'm only a troll on tuesdays)

Edited May 28, 2014 by Tryhard

[jiodi]

Sorry, I was just trying to reason why people would get upset for anything that sounds like "not all men", especially since it's got a lot of attention lately. I'm poor at words. I don't think you said anything terribly wrong, really.

(i'm only a troll on tuesdays)

Oh thank god, Tuesday was yesterday.

Wait...

DID YOU TROLL ME YESTERDAY???

[Elieson]

do you use it to bake cakes? as a fleshlight substitute?

if you own a handgun, i'm assuming that you own it for the purpose of protection.

Last time I checked, the Olympics featured both archery and shooting as competitive events. I (among others) own swords solely for show, but could just as well utilize them for performing violent acts. I've been to shooting ranges, and participated in competitions that are nationally recognized (not like I've placed well enough, but such events exist). Scouting organizations exist and award badges for proper use and safety awareness of various forms of weaponry, not related to protection. Your assumptions are pretty bold.

[Chiki]

Last time I checked, the Olympics featured both archery and shooting as competitive events. I (among others) own swords solely for show, but could just as well utilize them for performing violent acts. I've been to shooting ranges, and participated in competitions that are nationally recognized (not like I've placed well enough, but such events exist). Scouting organizations exist and award badges for proper use and safety awareness of various forms of weaponry, not related to protection. Your assumptions are pretty bold.

Then let's allow only certain organizations/gyms/whatever with licenses to own guns and bows and arrows. And we can go to these sports groups to practice shooting and so on, but never in private. Doesn't mean we should let everyone buy and own them.

You own a sword? I don't mean to be offensive here, but don't you have kids? That's very dangerous.

[Elieson]

Then let's allow only certain organizations/gyms/whatever with licenses to own guns and bows and arrows. And we can go to these sports groups to practice shooting and so on, but never in private. Doesn't mean we should let everyone buy and own them.

This boils down to my earlier suggestion of mandating stronger licensing. Like I said, you have to keep registration up on vehicular ownership (boats, cars, motorcycles). Why can't firearms be listed in there? Bows and Arrows would be nearly impossible to mandate though, as well, they can be crafted with 15$ of investment from Home Depot.

You own a sword? I don't mean to be offensive here, but don't you have kids? That's very dangerous.

Yes. It's a family heirloom, passed down from my adopted family that hails from Italy. I could get into the specifics, but it's not necessary. It rested above our fireplace in our old home, and my father gave it to me. Despite having a son, keeping it out of reach and with a chain lock on the hilt (and small steel bands bolted to the bricks of our fireplace that hold the handle and the scabbard in place against it) seemed like the best way to have it used as a decoration for our home. The birth of our daughter resulted in the decision to pack it into storage, but the point remains, it's a family treasure, similar to a medieval Coat of Arms, and means little in terms of self-protection. When my daughter reaches (probably 7-8, and my son, 15-16), I'd like to pull it from storage again. By then, I hope to have re-relocated from my current home to a new one where I can be more liberal with home decor.

However, we do own wooden tables with corners, beds that rest about 30 inches above ground, and have outlets in the restrooms that are fairly close to sinks. We shop using plastic bags, and We also have glass plates and windows, as well as crayons and such for entertainment. We're as careful as we can be with the "dangerous" things in our home, but it's just as easy for a toddler to trip over a toy and bonk their head on a table, as it is for them to drop a plate and step on the glass shards. I do agree that it's dangerous, but many things in houses are, and I do my best to handle them with proper precaution and care.

[Chiki]

This boils down to my earlier suggestion of mandating stronger licensing. Like I said, you have to keep registration up on vehicular ownership (boats, cars, motorcycles). Why can't firearms be listed in there? Bows and Arrows would be nearly impossible to mandate though, as well, they can be crafted with 15$ of investment from Home Depot.

You can technically be a blacksmith and make guns, too. We should outlaw that regardless of how easy it is to make.

Cars, like we said earlier, actually do a lot of good unlike guns. They make life convenient, but guns don't: there's a disanalogy here.

Yes. It's a family heirloom, passed down from my adopted family that hails from Italy.

Ok, so it's not just a typical American obsession with violent things.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Chiki

[Elieson]

Chiki, I'm not saying that vehicles are bad/more dangerous than firearms, but I am suggesting that we could better control whose hands those firearms end up in, through enforced registration renewal. You get fined for not having a valid registration on your car, why can't such a thing exist for firearms?

[Chiki]

Chiki, I'm not saying that vehicles are bad/more dangerous than firearms, but I am suggesting that we could better control whose hands those firearms end up in, through enforced registration renewal. You get fined for not having a valid registration on your car, why can't such a thing exist for firearms?

It doesn't really matter how responsible someone is. Accidents can always happen no matter who has a firearm. People make mistakes--they might forget to lock their guns somewhere, they might have the guns stolen by their kids, and so on.

Governmental control over guns will also likely be ineffective. Adam Lanza's mother probably seemed like the ideal gun owner up until the incident. Such people would likely pass testing with flying colors and still be poor gun owners.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Chiki

[Elieson]

But what about the people that fail ownership registration renewals and tests?

[Chiki]

But what about the people that fail ownership registration renewals and tests?

It doesn't really matter as long as there's people like the ones I mentioned above. Partial governmental control will often likely fail.

[Phoenix Wright]

If you can speak without offending, you should do it. Speak bluntly when necessary; speak carefully when necessary. Minimize damage.

i know exactly what you mean, in fact i'm doing this now with folks irl.

however, there comes a point where you should speak, offensive or not. if i read another facebook post attacking men as a whole because of the actions of one, i'm bound to respond. i'm in pain too, i have friends in ucsb that have lost friends or my friends could have been there when it happened, but for one reason or another decided not to go to iv deli in isla vista. you can't just let people make ignorant, emotionally charged statements just because they're in pain. that is stupid. i'm very happy my family didn't let me act any ol' way i wanted after the passing of my father when i was eight. when you're in intense pain, you can't think straight--and often times need people to help you stay on track, even if you don't know it or feel you need it yourself.

i'm ignoring your "when necessary" qualifiers, as they are much too vague to be of any use to anyone.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[Elieson]

however, there comes a point where you should speak, offensive or not.

When is communicating offensively a good idea?

[jiodi]

What does any of this have to do with women still being objectified in contemporary society?

[Phoenix Wright]

When is communicating offensively a good idea?

what i mean is you can't be afraid to offend people when you speak. once you do that, you're only silencing yourself.

saying that all men are pigs is utter nonsense, right? stating that bluntly to someone who truly believes that will most probably be offended, but given well-reasoned thoughts in addition to self-reflection on the person's part will lead to a change in opinion.

this will be my only post on it, and it'll simply serve as an anecdote: old time user death and esau helped me in seeing the sillyness of religion a number of years ago. their posts and my reflection on the subject caused a shift in how i perceived the world. they weren't assholes, but they were blunt. i was surely offended then, i can remember it. but it helped me

What does any of this have to do with women still being objectified in contemporary society?

who knows, man.

i think that's been said best by esau: it's still very much there, but not to the degree that we're led to believe. i don't think anyone here wants women to be objectified, so i think the safe conclusion is that all of us here think that we should make progress in having our culture think differently about it.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[Makaze]

Assuming that people have not been raped or abused by men in the past is not wrong to make. What kind of a person would assume that of everyone they meet? That's a horrible position to take. I am not obligated to instantly consider the feelings of everyone that's being an asshole to me, people aren't morally excused from people reacting to them after saying awful things simply because something bad happened in the past. I said that I do my best to be help others, that doesn't mean I am going to kowtow to someone making insane claims and likening me to a rapist simply because they have a warped and paranoid opinion after being abused. If that's insensitive of me then I guess I just have to be a dick, but no, I am not going to tolerate being told I am a rapist or a murderer because I am a man. Period.

Once again, I did not suggest that they had been raped or directly abused by men in the past.

Women are less privileged than men. Women face a lot of social stereotyping by men and other women alike as irrational and irresponsible. They are infantilized constantly. They are manipulated and looked down on by businessmen who see them as easy targets for their sales pitches. They get told not to go out at night alone. They get told not to wear attractive clothing. They get blamed very often for things done to them. There are large groups of people who shame them for exploring their sexualities, men and women alike. There is a hell of a lot of resentment towards men in this because they happen to be the primary perpetrators in cases where women are hurt and taken advantage of.

The pain most of them face is the consistent, life-long intimidation, reminding of, and fear of these things happening.

I even offered you a parallel.

Imagine being likened to a rapist and murderer and being treated as if you could be one your whole life and you might gain a little perspective. They have been dealing with these things their entire life.

You are coming across as if you think that they have to have been physically assaulted for their pain to matter. Can you see how that is offensive?

[Rehab]

When some version of "men __" vs. "not all men __" comes up (whether actually said, or as a hypothetical), something I often hear from the people saying the former (like, say, men are violent) is "of course we don't literally mean all men are violent/explosively misogynist/rapists. We [often] have plenty of male loved ones, after all. It's just that we have to be afraid of every male stranger as if they are." So, it's spoken of as a cultural problem, not a rule- they don't always literally mean "you and you and you" (though sometimes some of them do, admittedly) by "men," they're using "men" as a shorthand for "cultural projections/standards/expectations of men."

Admittedly, though, some of them have said it so much that they're tired of adding all that context to "men." Makes for a lot of fights, not all of which I think make sense to have.

You can, of course, be male and be hurt by the same things that these people have a problem with in whatever (possibly twisted) kind of masculinity we're looking at. According to them, their problem is that any form of masculinity leads to or encourages it.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Rehab

[dondon151]

Chiki, I'm not saying that vehicles are bad/more dangerous than firearms, but I am suggesting that we could better control whose hands those firearms end up in, through enforced registration renewal. You get fined for not having a valid registration on your car, why can't such a thing exist for firearms?

i point you once more to my heroin/landmine thought experiment. no matter how tightly you regulate them, allowing people to own dangerous objects that serve relatively little benefit will necessarily yield some amount of poor outcomes.

[Elieson]

i point you once more to my heroin/landmine thought experiment. no matter how tightly you regulate them, allowing people to own dangerous objects that serve relatively little benefit will necessarily yield some amount of poor outcomes.

The difference between landmines and handguns though, is that the former have never really been legalized/up for distribution to the untrained, untrustable public. Handguns are already out there, so unless there's some better way to monitor what already exists + what is newly entering the public's hands...I'm at a loss

[dondon151]

The difference between landmines and handguns though, is that the former have never really been legalized/up for distribution to the untrained, untrustable public. Handguns are already out there, so unless there's some better way to monitor what already exists + what is newly entering the public's hands...I'm at a loss

why does this matter? suppose that they have been legalized. that's the whole premise of the thought experiment: replace everything that is legal about handguns with landmines, or any other object that is specifically engineered to kill or maim.

the question in general terms: should something that is intrinsically dangerous and only marginally useful be legal to own for the general population? and since people in the US have a blind spot with regard to gun ownership, a different example is more effective at illustrating the point.

the "handguns are already out there" argument is a lazy one. the australian government bought back 700,000 guns after enacting strict gun control measures back in 1996. attitudes toward gun ownership will change given enough time and pressure. just because a measure is initially unpopular does not mean that it is the incorrect thing to do (civil rights, anyone?).

Edited May 28, 2014 by dondon151