Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
The whole "what could have stopped X" question is a loaded one. But regardless, the answer is gun control, and U.S. law should learn from modern German law:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/germany-gun-control-laws-a4366996.html
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/london-evening-standard/
It's crazy how even this right wing sources seems to understand that gun control is necessary and a requirement for low gun death rates, given that they admit right at the begging of the article that they have amongst the lowest death rates out there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Total:
Germany: 1.04/capita
United States: 12.21/capita
Homicide only:
Germany: 0.06/capita
United States: 4.46/capita
If more guns & lax gun laws made us safe, we would should expect to see the opposite. Yet we don't, because anybody with half a brain understands that a tool whose purpose is to kill as easily as possible will make killing easier when it is around untrained people/people with insufficient reason to own it/people who store them poorly.
That's a 75x smaller gun homicide rate. We aren't going to get that small of a rate without gun control.
Inb4 somebody calls me a troll despite putting effort into this: fuck off
Mate, here's a great example of you intentionally pissing everyone off. Look at how much effort you put into the comment, you got sources and everything. But you're still managed to piss everyone off, while maintaining a thin facade of civility. We can see past it at this point, you aren't here to discuss or anything, just to troll.
A try-hard troll is still a troll.
I'm still going to let peepin make the final decision, but I fully recommend a ban.
Except for that last line, I can't in good conscience ban Pizzaman. As long as he brings the arguments, it's not something I'll do. After all, dissent is allowed in the comments.
And Winter and I just had a discussion about gun laws that stemmed from Pizzaman's post. So, there's no reason why people can't agree or disagree on the substance and entirely ignore a thin façade of civility if that's what you really think it is.
The problem is that his arguments are made from faulty, intentionally dishonest foundations. It doesn't matter how many random propaganda sites he links, the whole thing is still a heap of garbage and lies.
So what?
Do you think the solution to mis-/dis-information is censorship or otherwise attempting to marginalize what you believe are "garbage and lies"? What makes his arguments invalid? Which of his statements are false and lies? How do you know? And why are you definitely right and why is he definitely wrong?
There's this really interesting humans do. We become convinced of some viewpoint, whether through reason or, more likely, uncritical acceptance of some framework. It's the right viewpoint. We assume others must also share our viewpoint. The truth is obvious to us. So disagreement is often treated as lies. The one who disagrees knows the truth, but chooses to say otherwise. They're nefarious, despicable, and disrespectful for their duplicity in the face of an obvious truth.
But here's the thing: people genuinely hold beliefs different than you. What you see as "faulty, intentionally dishonest foundations" can only be true if you are of the mind of Pizzamane and can definitively say he believes in something else entirely. You must have the mind of Pizzamane. Unless you're really a psychic, you cannot do that. He may actually believe the foundations of his beliefs and you've been wrong this whole time. You can't know that's true either.
So what to do?
As hard as it might be, you have no choice but to except Pizzamane and other liberals and leftists at face value. You can consider our beliefs as garbage all you want. But leftists have every right to participate in this community, just as you do. And, I assure you, we often consider your beliefs garbage. When we disagree, then we should argue about the arguments, the statements and conclusions.
In short, he, or anyone else for that matter, will not be banned by me as long as they bring arguments. (...and don't tell people to fuck off...😠)
Yes. When people continuously are shown to be bad actors uninterested in the actual facts, yes, it's good for the health of a community built around discussion to remove such a person since all letting them stay does is place an extra burden on everyone else to continuously correct the lies such that they don't propagate to unknowing people.
Funny how this standard applies to me, but not the conservatives around here who are throwing insults around (one of whom is a mod).
I believe there is a term for it, a double standard.
I'd like for this community to have high quality discussions. But it never will so long as the rules aren't enforced on conservatives and leftists alike.
Calling an anti-intellectual troll on their bad behavior is not equivalent to being an anti-intellectual troll. I'd also like high quality discussions, but unfortunately you're still here
I very much doubt that given how many times you've insulted me for making an argument.
Only because you've demonstrated that you're either incapable or unwilling to acknowledge basic facts
You keep saying that, but it doesn't mean anything. You never present facts in the first place. You just immediately dismiss what I say out of hand.
I already presented facts, numerous times. Your intentional refusal to engage with the truth doesn't mean it's my fault for not trying