Are all cultures compatible? Or are they incompatible?

Are all cultures incompatible or are all of them compatible?  Or are only some compatible with one another?

Can incompatible cultures peacefully co-exist with one another?  If yes, how would that work?  What would need to happen for peace to happen between the two?  If they can’t co-exist peacefully, how come?  What would make that happen?  Would it be easy to reconcile the two culture’s differences, whether they are compatible or not?

Are hateful cultures compatible with loving/caring cultures?  Is there such a thing as a “loving culture” or a “hateful culture”?  If there is, then how can love coexist with hate?

Can Liberal/Progressive culture peacefully exist with Conservative/Republican culture?

After all, both liberals and Conservatives have different views on what’s hateful, on what’s loving, on what’s tolerant, on what’s just, on what’s not just, on how to solve conflict, etc.

Now how would two different cultures solve conflict?  If you have differing visions on how to get justice implemented, you will forever be in conflict because the other side will feel cheated when you win and will try to rectify (according to their ideology) the lack of justice.  And vice versa.  This is conflict.  Conflict is not peace.

Liberal logic: Peaceful people can't be trusted with guns

Liberal logic: Peaceful people can't be trusted with guns.

If peaceful people can’t be trusted with guns and are deprived of guns, how would they defend against someone with a gun?  After all, seconds count when the police are minutes away.  Plus, the police can’t be everywhere.

Guns & Discrimination

Sure, you could say that armed guards, the police and the secret service have the uninfringeable authority to have guns.  So do we, it’s called the 2nd Amendment.  You could also say that you trust them to have guns and that trust is crucial to allowing someone to have guns.  We millions upon millions of people aren’t convicted murderers and you don’t trust us?  Why wouldn’t you trust anyone who doesn’t have it in them to murder?

You’ll hire armed guards and you don’t know them from Adam or Jane.  Yet you trust them.  They have a good record of not murdering anyone with their guns or the guns their employment gives them for work.  We have a good record too of not murdering anyone too, but you won’t trust us?  

Clearly you favor one group of people over another even though they meet the same essential and crucial criteria for trust and safety with guns.

That’s called discrimination.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean you hate

Fact:  Many parents don’t hate their children when they say they’re against and disagree with their children having sex at too early an age or doing drugs (at any age), or whether or not their children grow up with different world views and/or politics.  

Fact:  I have a friend who is pro LGBT.  I disagree with and am against her way of thinking on this issue.  We are good friends in spite of both of us being against each other’s way of thinking and disagreeing with each other on this issue.  Being good friends with one another clearly isn’t something where hate is involved.

Fact:  Years ago, I had a co-worker who hated George W. Bush.  Yet I still had a crush on her even though I disagreed with and was against her way of thinking.  Clearly if someone has a crush on someone else, they don’t hate them.

Fact:  I was a huge heavy metal fan at one point (and to some extent, still am).  My Grandfather (born in the early part of the 20th century) wasn’t.  He may have been against my choice in music and disagreed with my choice in listening to it so much, but we had a strong bond in spite of our differences.  When you have a strong bond with someone, that’s clearly not hate.

Fact: I know someone who wants to move to a different state in the US, but his wife doesn’t.  They disagree with each other and are against each other’s way of thinking.  But they’re still happily married.  Being happily married isn’t a thing where hate is involved.

So being against and disagreeing with someone doesn’t necessarily mean that you “hate” them. If hate comes into the picture, I think the biggest reason might be the interpersonal relations between liberals and Conservatives.  Some on both sides are fascist in their interpersonal relations.  They might also be a bit tyrannical.  Or they might choose to censor or ban someone or some group.  Being shouted down is another one.  Stealing political yard signs might also cause some to hate. 

But being against someone’s way of doing things or disagreeing with their point of view doesn’t always mean that you hate them.  

Hard Work

Granted, I believe liberals are wrong on a variety of topics, but for the sake of the argument, let’s say they’re right on those topics.

From their perspective:

1.)  They have to have facts to combat Conservatives.

2.)  They have to work hard to defeat Conservatives.

3.)  They have to have certain ethics that Conservatives don’t have.

4.)  They have to put in a lot of time to defeat us.

5.)  They have to have patience in defeating us.

In other words, hard work.

So when it’s liberals battling Conservatives, it’s called hard work.  It’s not talked about in a bad way.

But the minute the battle changes from liberals vs Conservatives to blacks learning in school, suddenly hard work is called “acting white” by many of them.  I wonder why?

Accusation equals guilt without question?

Liberals think: Because the accusation of bigotry was made, that they automatically have bulletproof evidence. Thus when the accused defend themselves, they're foolish.

So an accusation is automatic guilt?

I thought individual bigoted white people used that kind of thinking? Do liberals mean to be like individual white bigots?

If you picked up a loaded gun

If you picked up a loaded gun, will it hurt or kill you upon doing so? No? Then why do you blame it as though it chose to kill (which it can't do) when it was the evil person who chose to kill people? Mind you, often the police are minutes away and that’s all the time a would-be murderer needs to kill you, so having a gun to save your life and stop the killer is important!!

What is a gun's primary purpose?

If you think that a gun's primary purpose is to murder someone, then you are telling me what I intend to use one for. Is lying about my intentions to my face the way to debate me or anyone on this subject? I live close to a bad neighborhood where there are shootings every once in a while. If I buy a gun, it's primary purpose in my life would be for self defense.

The protected groups are immune from criticism

Because you are black, latino, gay, lesbian, transgender, muslim, etc, I can’t say that you are corrupt or abusive.  That would be “bigoted”.

Well, that’s what liberals would have us believe.

And guess what?  Because getting called bigoted effectively cancels out the accusation of being corrupt or abusive, that means that these protected groups I listed above can do what I accuse them of and get away with it.

But according to liberals, any accusation of abuse or corruption is all a lie.  All for ONE reason: the people I mentioned are black, latino, gay, lesbian, transgender, muslim, etc.

Since when does one’s status or classification in this world make accusations of abuse or corruption a lie?  Didn’t straight white Christian men at one point try to use that logic?  If it’s bad logic when they use it, how can it somehow be good logic when you liberals use it?

A long post about guns

Someone might say:  “Guns are so dangerous that they’ll kill you if you pick them up. You don’t even need to keep your finger on or near the trigger to be in danger of the gun hurting or killing you.”

8,583 people have been murdered by guns of various types in America in 2011.  That’s a mighty big number, isn’t it?  I guess what makes it seem like a big number is the fact that it’s big compared to the number of people we associate with on a regular basis.  If the amount of murders where guns are used is any indication of guns being dangerous, then from this perspective, guns are definitely dangerous.

What if you compared the 8,583 gun murders in 2011 to the population of the country (nearly 324 MILLION) instead of your relatively small social circle?  What if you compared the amount of gun related murders to the opposite of gun related murders, which is vastly larger in comparison? That completely changes things. The number 8,583 doesn’t seem so huge after that change in perspective.  If the amount of murders where guns are used is any indication of guns being dangerous, then from this perspective, guns are not dangerous because they are used on a small fraction of the people in America.  Go ahead.  Do the math.  The number is VERY small.

Ok, so the number of people in America wasn’t 324 million back in 2011.  So what?  Maybe it was a few million less.  Does that change the fact that there were over 300 million people in America in 2011?  Not by a long shot.

But you say “What about the cities where guns kill lots of people daily?”  Chicago would be one example.  To that I say “Bad guys will always be able to get guns through either legal means or, if guns are ever permanently banned across the entire USA (not just the cities), they will get them from the black market.  It’s at this point that only they and the police will have guns.  And this leaves minority families living in the cities with a severe disadvantage: What if their homes are broken into? The police are minutes away and often that’s all a murderer needs to kill one or more members of a family.  It’s during those minutes that a good guy using a gun can stop a bad guy from hurting or killing the good guy and his or her family.  And whether or not it’s rare that guns are used in self defense, the fact is that there are a lot of break ins that are dangerous for the victims.

But you say “My home has never been broken into before and likely won’t in the future, so your argument doesn’t hold water.”  To that I say “We don’t know what the future holds.  We don’t know who will be next.  You seem to be saying that you know it won’t be you and as a result, you won’t take the precautions to keep your household safe.  

But you say “I don’t want to kill someone, even in self defense!”  Either way you look at it, when someone comes at you with a gun, someone is getting hurt or killed.  The innocent victim (you) should be the one to remains unhurt, not the attacker.  Look, we’re talking about you defending yourself.  How is that a bad thing?  The last I checked, it’s not against the law to defend yourself.

But you say “if we can stop just one gun related murder, then it will be worth it to have gun control.”  Black markets which go around gun control laws aside, to your statement I say “One way to stop a gun related murder is for people like you (who care a lot about others) to have guns for the defense of human life.  You might say “But if guns are involved, a human will get hurt or die!”  That’s right.  Better the aggressor than you, wouldn’t you say?  If not, I wonder if you really care about yourself and others.  Or perhaps you just haven’t thought things through yet.

But you say “what about suicides?” A suicide is similar to a murder because each involves the death of someone.  So let’s equate them as the same for the sake of the argument.  Does that change anything else I’m saying here?  No?  Then why do you use it as an argument for gun control?

You also say “but even one gun related murder is a tragedy.  Guns must be highly regulated or banned outright.”  My response is “Not being able to use a gun for self defense is also a tragedy. You having no gun in a situation in which you are the intended victim means you have less of a chance of surviving because it won’t be there to help defend your life.”

You say “but guns are hardly ever used for self defense.” Fact: There are murders in this world. Fact: We don’t know who will be next.  Since we don’t know who will be next, it could be us or people around us.  Don’t you want a super effective way of stopping an attacker from potentially seriously harming or killing you or your loved ones or anyone for that matter?

You say “But you can reason with someone before you kill them in self defense so hopefully they don’t murder you”.  You could and there is a time/place for that. Yet if they’re in the middle of pulling out their gun to kill you OR if they already have it aimed at you, they are past the point at which they can be reasoned with.  At that point, shooting them is your best bet at you (the innocent person in all this) staying safe.

You say “You don’t need more than ten rounds”  I say “What if the bad guy has more rounds than you?  Sure, it only takes one shot to kill and stop them, but what if it takes more than that (it’s not always the first shot that kills, after all) and you suddenly run out while they have more rounds and wham, you get murdered because of a lack of rounds?  What if it’s a firefight where you need more than ten rounds?

If guns were so dangerous, then I’d be killed by them even by just picking them up in my hands.

Sources:

For gun deaths in 2011, I got the info here:  https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

For the population number, I got the info here:  http://www.census.gov

Guns are dangerous? Really?

If guns are so dangerous, why does it take a mean spirited person to make them go off?

If guns are outlawed

If guns are outright outlawed, will people still be able to get their hands on them?  Will only the bad guys and police have them?  What will non murderous minded people do for self defense?

Guns are dangerous, right? Here's my take

If guns are so dangerous, shouldn't I be scared to arm myself with one?  After all, them being dangerous would mean they'd shoot me while in my hands!

If guns are so dangerous, then how come...

If guns are so dangerous, then how come a vast majority of them (millions upon millions) aren't used in the murder or injury of innocents?

Racism is a mindset

Racism is a mindset. You don't need to have power to have this mindset. So to say that minorities can't be racist because they don't have power is just an excuse to let them get away with being racist.

Hate Speech

Hate speech. The simplest form of hate speech is "I hate you"

So what if someone hates me? Yes, it will annoy me a bit, but I wouldn't censor someone over it. Well, I don't have the power to, but I also wouldn't report it to FaceBook if someone said they hated me OR if they said hateful things about me or my preferred candidate or a group of people that I advocate for.

Only weak people would report something like that. Admittedly, when I graduated high school back in '98, I was the weak type that might have reported "hate speech". But people I knew would have none of it and eventually I grew much stronger, so I don't report stuff that offends me. Believe me, plenty of what liberals say offends me. Yet it does not cross my mind to report them!

I move on with my day after processing what happened.  Sometimes it takes a little while, but I move on with life.  Shouldn’t liberals move on with theirs?

Bottom line:  If you post hate speech that is specific to me, I won’t report you.  Now how come many liberals aren’t like this?  Because many of them are weak.  Do we really want weak people in charge of our country?  Do we really want people in charge of our country that refuse to move on from a problem where they were offended?  Is being offended and not moving on from the issue really the hallmark of a great leader, a great moral guide, someone to look up to?

When I was a child, I wouldn’t move on from issues much the same way many liberals don’t move on with their issues.

They can say it, but we can't? Double standards abound!!

The phrase “I’m so sick of whites” or “I stay away from whites” is seen as liberals to be backed up by their experiences with us.  Sure, WE may feel they’re paranoid much of the time, but that’s not the point here.

What I want to know is why can’t we say the same about them?  When they say it about us, it’s not racist, but when we say it about them, it suddenly is?  What specific criteria do they use to justify this double standard?

It's not oppressive to require someone to show ID to buy cigarettes or open a bank account, but...

If it's not oppressive to require showing one's ID to set up a bank account or for young people to buy cigarettes, how is it oppressive to require those same people to show ID to vote?

DNA vs What gender people feel they are at any given moment

DNA doesn't change it's mind about what gender it is, but apparently some people do change their minds on what gender they are. How can DNA have it wrong, all because some people have contradictory feelings?

Identity

If identifying as a woman "justifies" a man going into a woman's restroom and since it also means that people can't stop that man, I guess the following is true: You can identify as someone (or some thing) that someone else is and nobody can stop you from acting out their part.

Ok then:  I identify as Mark Zuckerberg.  The banks better not discriminate when I want to withdraw more money than Janson Smithers has in savings.

Are guns accomplices to murder? If that's true, what about...?

If gun sellers are accomplices of crime, what about their guns that are used to save lives?  What about their guns that aren't used for cold blooded murder?

Gender fluidity

A penis is not a female body part and never will be. It always has been the hallmark of the male gender. To suggest otherwise, you'd have your facts wrong.

The idea of gender being fluid is thus wrong.

Is it possible to hate someone and not be a bigot?

Is it possible to hate someone and not be a bigot?

I hate racists.
I hate sexists.
I hate corrupt politicians.
I hate the establishment GOP.
I hate child molestors.
I hate rapists.
I hate people who take advantage of others.
I hate liars.
I hate deadbeat dads.

As I just got done proving, it is possible to hate and not be a bigot. So how come liberals treat the issue as though all hate is bad and that all hate is based on bad reasoning when quite often, it's based on bad experiences with bad individuals?

If gender is a societal construct, how come...

If gender is a societal construct, how come I have different parts (both internal and external) than roughly half the population of people? Is THAT difference a "societal construct"? Is the fact that I can't have babies grow inside of me a "societal construct"? Is the fact that I can't breast feed a baby a "societal construct"? Is the fact that I don't have PMS a "societal construct"? Is the fact that I don't need mammograms a "societal construct"? Is the fact that I don't have a vagina a "societal construct"?

If gender is such a fluid thing, then how come I was born with clearly distinct parts from roughly have the population aka females? I can understand how people would think, from a mental point of view, how gender is a societal construct only in that people have wild crazy and stupid ideas. But in the ways that I just pointed out, one by one, it is CLEAR that gender is NOT a societal construct.

Safe Spaces

Since my parents divorce 23 years ago, I've been through emotional HELL. Yet you don't see me demanding a safe space in public, do you? How is it that I am strong enough to not require a "safe space" like those idiots in college do?

If I can do it, with all the hell and emotional torment I've been through, surely these pansies can do it too, right?

I guess not. Since they can't do without their safe spaces, what enabled us two very similar creatures to end up with such wildly different demands (or on my case, lack of demands) on the public regarding safe spaces?