Bathrooms, Bullets, Inconsistency, and the Criminal Mind

[Odybld]

So I jumped into baseless conclussions and attributed agenda-pushing to you? Excuse me, how the hell did I manage to do this?!

I tried to steer clear as much as possible from the two examples you misused and managed to derail the thread from its premise. I stated my opinions on the premise and that included the bashing of much of the political debate scene. Unless you think tht these memes you posted or the incident Tomas described are not worthy of being called a shitstorm made by stretching everything from reality to common sense to its limits.

I didn't word it well, it was pretty late, but I believe that for some of the biggest issues in politics you have to go radical or miss a historic opportunity to pick the right direction or correct flaws of the past. The small-scale things like the bathroom and the gun control are, well, small-scale in comparison to the example I gave you, where the conservative "return to the pre-war status quo" approach let the accomplices of the german occupation forces came on top after the end of said occupation, which resulted to a civil war from 1944 to 1949, a split in both the political scene and society, a very dysfunctional political scene influenced by the "state within the state" and a military dictatorship in a european, natoic country that started in god damn 1967!!!

Man, it's nice to live in a country so strong that your biggest issues are where some people should take a piss and if you should continue to shoot each other like dummies or not. And if you think that I'm insensitive about the trans issues, what I want to say is that the issue at hand is so childishly simple to solve...

[Marcello]

Well, I'll bite. As fair warning, this is another outsider perspective, as I'm from England (Land of 'It's damn near impossible to get legal permission to own a firearm out of a few very VERY specific circumstances' and as far as I'm aware the trans bathroom deal is not an issue here, people use the bathroom of their gender (which is a matter of identity.) )

I'll go over my stance on the issues presented but then I'll try to speak about centre/left/right politics as a whole, because I do believe that's how this topic was intended.

So on the trans bathroom thing, I very much stand where my country (and it appears pretty much everyone in this topic) does. People should use the bathroom of whichever gender they identify as (if applicable). Oftentimes here in England, much like a lot of the rest of the world, politics devolves into 'Which side can make everyone more scared of the other'?. It is unfortunate, but fear is a big part of how politics works. Frankly, it sounds like an entirely reasonable fear for people on the other end to have to, and I'm quoting someone I've had this discussion with irl: 'Let people with man bits in lady bathrooms and people with lady bits in man bathrooms.' (You can just tell that was a FUN discussion.)

However, while that does seem like a reasonable fear to have, I do also consider it unfounded and often born of ignorance. As I believe has been said above, it is frankly not all THAT difficult for a man to get in convincing enough drag that he won't be questioned going into a woman's bathroom, or vice-versa. If some scum wants prey on people of the other gender in bathrooms they already have tools to do so. Even if this would add another such 'tool' I doubt it would really change anything. It seems very strange to me that people would want to inconvenience and discriminate against an entire portion of the population for such a reason (And I don't recall ever hearing a case of someone claiming they were trans to get into the other bathroom and then assaulting someone over hear, although I can't say for sure whether or not it has happened. But I feel like if it was a huge problem warranting seriously considering telling trans people they have to use a particular bathroom, an average person like me would have heard of at least one case of it happening.)

Alright, on to gun control where I think my stance is a little more nuanced. Now, as stated above, we have very strict gun control laws over here. You very rarely hear about any level of gun violence here, and when you do it's almost always tied to organised crime (And as pessimistic as it is, I doubt any level of gun control will prevent organised crime getting the weapons they need). As far as I'm aware, as a country we've only ever had one school shooting (after which we pretty much banned handguns). Frankly, I would never even CONSIDER supporting wider access to guns in England. But the discussion is not about England, it's about America, and that's where the greater nuance comes in. A while ago, people over here were having big discussions about the possibility of Nuclear Disarmament. While I won't go into my particular views on the issue, one very reasonable viewpoint that often came up was, simply 'Until nobody has nukes, everybody needs them.' That attitude still has credibility in the gun debate.

The fact that guns are so widespread already is an issue. Plenty of people have them and it's oft a part of your culture. I am not aware of exactly how easy it is to get a gun in America, and I think there should absolutely be strong checks in place with this sort of thing, but cultural differences are a big thing. Sure, to me, extremely limited or no guns seems the obvious way to go, but that's because that's how things are and pretty much always have been here during my life. But I'm well aware that big changes to things which are potentially ingrained in society or culture are difficult to get right, no matter how obvious of a change it may seem to an outsider like me. Put simply, I don't really feel I would be able to offer a good view on this without a better understanding of American culture.

I think the question of politics itself is a really very interesting one. I've said where I stand on these issues which is largely aligned with where my country does, because that's what seems reasonable to me. However saying where I stand in regards to the centre/right/left is trickier. I tend to consider myself reasonably centrist, although I'm probably at the rightmost end of the centre. In the few opportunities I've had to vote in my time I've gone both ways before, depending on what was being voted on and what the candidates both have on the table, and just generally who I thought would do the job best. I would get into more detail there but I don't fancy explaining the British political system and the various things we generally vote on.

Now, the difference is, centre-right is not at all where I feel I would stand with American politics. I don't claim to get all of it and know everything that's going on, but as an outsider, centre-right in the UK seems to me to map to a pretty strong left over in the US. I recall doing a rather extensive quiz that someone on the forums (Jericho I think) posted which asked a hell of a lot of questions and matched you to which US candidates you most agreed with. I took it and found myself with very high (and in fact equal) percentage matchings with both Bernie and Hillary and very low ones for nearly everyone else. And with that perspective I find it really difficult to comment on the dynamics of these things because it looks to me like my right is a very different thing from your right, and the same with my left.

What I will say, however, is that while I do generally try to advocate what I see as the middle ground, I believe some situations do call for a potentially strong swing to the right or left. But doing so in other situations can be not only ineffective, but also sometimes dangerous.

I guess what I'm trying to say in my own really very verbose way is that I evaluate most political issues on a case by case basis, and sometimes I'm left, sometimes I'm right, and sometimes I'm down the middle, just wherever seems the most logical to me. Here's hoping I've not missed the point of the topic.

[NickCrash]

It may need to be explicitly stated but the political spectrum differs among countries, and even if you regarded as most posts not answering the question (which is really what's off topic) I mentioned how USA is an innate conservative country. Many parties that define themselves as Right-wing in Europe may be considered to be leaning towards the Left in US.

This is a prologue to state that the questions set have no business with where an individual stands; left, right or center. You will see people from all present arguments that support either case: strict gun control --- no gun control. The same applies for the bathroom (nonexistant) issue.

Having said that, in scenarios like the above there are two parts that need to be discussed:

1. Defining the existence of the problem and its parameters

2. Providing solutions to it, and debating on the correct and incorrect ones.

I thought that all of the above was obvious enough. We do not need to mask the thread as a debate on left-right political agenda, because that has hardly any basis. As Hunter said, both Conservatives and Liberals (in America) have voiced opinions that support both ways. So it's a matter of personal opinion, and not restricting certain opinions to certain political sides. In the end of the day, targeting the core of the discussion (here gun control) is more important, as solutions do not necessarily belong to one side of the political spectrum or to another.

This should not evolve into a shame exhange, but basic respect dictates that when you call something 'nonesense' you take the time to quote it and answer in full detail why your opinion on the matter is different.

[Chase]

Alright Tomas, I'll admit some quick reading and misunderstanding earlier. That's my fault, and I am sorry.

I've personally advocated "common sense" gun control laws in other areas of this site before - because my assertion is not "everyone should own a gun" regardless of how you read my earlier post in this particular thread. The premise isn't even directly about one issue or the other so much as it is the inconsistent view on the common argument presented between the two and how it applies to general politics.

I ignored most comments about gun control or transgender bathroom access directly because contrary to what you're claiming, I didn't ASK about why gun laws in America are stupid in your opinion or why laws regarding transgender bathroom access are stupid in the opening post. I wasn't talking about opinion so much as I was talking about logical consistency. The biggest hangup everyone seemed to have was the pictures I used to illustrate an example. Folks wanted to focus on the individual issues addressed and not the questions posed. That's where Kurotsune was graciously observant - not just in claiming we needed to stop fighting.

I'm not one who advocates vigilante justice. I advocate defending oneself and one's family on the premises of one's own home. If there's someone walking down a public sidewalk and he looks at you funny - you probably shouldn't shoot at him unless you're allowed to carry your gun in the streets and the other person is doing a bit more than looking at you funny. My biggest issue with the police isn't that "we could do the job better."

It's that they just don't do the job in time every single time - and because the law permits in wording the ability to wield weapons and use them against other people under specific circumstances - firearms make for a failsafe option.

Frankly, as a foreigner, I would be somewhat right to assume you don't know the ins and outs of firearm legislation in America - but only that it's looser than that of your own country. Depending on area, there are strict-er parts of the United States on gun control, but the ironic feature over here in America, is that the areas with more legislature that supports gun control often end up seeing more shootings the areas that are more lax in legislature. For instance, there hasn't been many school shootings in Texas (where owning a gun is a sacred ritual that is a signal of adulthood in some families) than there are in Chicago or Los Angeles.

The reason I am not for strict gun control is simply that most shootings are done by people that either don't care about the law -or- are unfit to wield weapons due to medical reasoning. Also, where I'm from, there's a genuine respect for one another that comes with knowing all of your neighbors are armed. Crime is much lower in my neck of the woods than stricter areas of the United States.

You can point to the wording of the United States' 2nd Amendment as to why "gun culture" is a thing though - It's been the means of obtaining independence and democracy and thus has a specific allowance of firearm bearing to use against "tyrannical government". Meaning - people owned guns not just to hunt or to protect their families, it was encouraged to overthrow governments "We the People" found too excessive in power. The reason people take pride in owning firearms here can be traced back to the reason the Continental Army was satisfied with winning it's independence from England. It's revered.

There's also the areas where it's a bit too late for super strong legislation to take place without massive gun collections by the government - an act that would trigger legal killing under the Constitution as it's written because a Constitutional right is being limited or taken away from the entire population of the country.

With that kind of backdrop in mind, it's not easy passing strict gun control laws across the entire country - and the fact that it largely hinges on the democratic process doesn't help matters.

--

Ody

I thanked you because you actually did the right thing and responded in a manner I wanted - by reading the questions and answering to the best of your ability. You seem to have misunderstood me if you're taking those points from the first page as applied to you directly.

You're good.

--

Marcello

Thank you, That's exactly what I wanted to read from everyone else posting

--

Nick - the discussion was SUPPOSED to be about left-right political agenda...more so than the two topics the pictures brought up. I used those two pictures in hopes of getting people to see where I was pointing out the common logical inconsistency of both sides of the American political spectrum.

[Tacos]

Hi there friends. While I understand the topics discussed here may be issues held close to your heart or ones you feel intense passion for, let's not let that passion turn into disrespect and hatred. Please try and keep these debates civil and free from personal attacks. If things continue as they are, this thread will be locked and necessary punishments can and will be given.

[NickCrash]

Nick - the discussion was SUPPOSED to be about left-right political agenda...more so than the two topics the pictures brought up. I used those two pictures in hopes of getting people to see where I was pointing out the common logical inconsistency of both sides of the American political spectrum.

This is why in my last comment, I tried to explain why focusing the discussion on the agenda is pointless. Simply put, the agenda is (supposedly) made according to the current needs of the people, combined with the ideas that serve as the foundation of each party. If you remember, I have started a similar thread in the Nightclub which ended up about the agenda without tackling the issue per se. What I'm trying to say is that discussing around the problem and not in its core, we achieve no actual benefit. All the while, one can understand where someone belongs based on his views on the matter. Which party uses which demagogic techniques to support either opinion, while not a different topic, is of little significance, because as you said, most people here have little power to actually change the current state of the matter.

Everyone here, including you Hunter, has answered by providing their own opinions, which in turn are based on their political affiliations (<-- although that may not be the best word), but if we just wanted to gather info on each country's representatives and their governments' views on each matter, a poll would suffice. As seen with the current American presidential campaigns, all candidates sway left and right, capitalizing on certain problems/situations based on what the previous dominant party was, all to gather voters, proving (as ironic as it may seem) that their agenda and personal opinions often don't overlap and even in some cases contradict each other. This is a logical inconsistency on its own.

I believe it's more constructive to discuss the issues at hand, rather than who can get the most benefit by supporting each side, but that may be just me. If nothing else, the topics in both pictures are more interesting and through the debate they stir, you will get the information you seek without it being strictly limited to it.

[TimTim]

I am also from an outsider perspective here, but i don't know what will i stand in gun control law because we don't ever have a period when there is no gun control since independence for me to have experienced the other side of arguement, my country has strict gun law and weirdly enough it was pushed by the party leaning towards what would Americans otherwise calls conservative in other issues(they marginalize LGBT, overwhelmingly pro-life etc) Per NickCrash said, it's not always about political leanings rather the matters at hand itself. My apology in advance if this post came out sounding weird because obviously Asian countries have different circumstances than Europe and America.

[Odybld]

Kuro, Ame, Ody...and maybe a few others. Thank you for at least reading my questions. The former two of you have further thanks for being engaging instead of jumping to baseless conclusions, attributing me to pushing some sort of agenda, and other nonsense.

My bad, my bad. I misread this as "the ones that are not the former two have been jumping to baseless conclusions etc. My bad.

Another interesting example: when rhetorics are purely for the decor and vote-hunting

Since 2010 my country, Greece, has been under strong fiscal austerity controlled by the IMF, the European Commission and the European Central Bank. During this while, we've had a multitude of governments: one by the central-socialist party, which is pretty much one half of the modern greek politics' status quo, one temporary government by both great parties with the prime minister being a non-politician, a former head of the Bank of Greece, then a three-party government with whatever survived from the central-socialist party and headed by its other status-quo half, the right-populist party, from June 2012 to Jan2015. And latest, a two-party government headed by the party that rose from 3% to winning the elections in a few years, a left-populist party.

Especially the newer leftist party and the older right party have had different opinions on the fiscal matters and of course different rhetorics. However, with the policies being pretty much imposed and forced upon the country from outside institutions, all the rhetorics in the end of the day can go: the results are pretty much the same, and it gets worse and worse every time. Draw whatever conclussion you want about rhetorics in the political arena.

[Ice Cream Sand Witch]

Sorry if I'm one of the people who was off-topic. I talked about the issues themselves because one of the questions was where we stand on those issues, but I did forget about the other questions while I was replying.

Re: logical consistency. I'd like to think I'm logically consistent here because I don't use "Criminals don't care about laws" as an argument for or against any issue. I find the argument itself flawed for reasons I mentioned. The key word is "here" because I'm sure there are other areas where I'm not logically consistent and haven't even realized, on account of being human/not perfect. Just not with this specific argument.

Re: important to political identity. Yes, I think logical consistency is important in peoples' political opinions. If the same argument someone uses to support one opinion can be used against them for an issue they oppose, they should rethink their arguments and positions. Or they could try to make a very strong case for why there should be an exception for a certain issue.