Kal-El814

I want to be clear that when I say the use of lethal force in self defense should be illegal, I do not expect that people in a life threatening situation should be expected to make a measured response when defending themselves. I understand that is not realistic. If someone uses lethal force in self defense and the state elects to not press charges, or it’s determined in court that there was no lethal intent and someone died as the result of someone defending themselves, I’m not inherently opposed to that. That doesn’t change my mind that lethal self defense should be illegal to remove teeth from what I perceive to be the abject nonsense that is castle doctrine, stand your ground, open carry, etc. ”I got shoved and I feared for my life, so I shot someone in the chest,” or, “I saw someone on my property so I started shooting,” needs to come to an immediate end, forever, and people that do that need to have their weapons confiscated, destroyed, their right to own a firearm forever purged, and those people need to be on trial for taking someone else’s life.

Jim is easily the most stereotypical office asshole with no endearing qualities. Fuck Jim.

Fuck open carry.

Poorly and with great imagination. Snark aside... if we’re sticking with some of the hypotheticals we’re talking about here, the surest way someone can apply lethal force in self defense is with a firearm. I feel there should be less of them in the hands of private citizens. Not too much mote to my logic than that aside from the perspective that the state having a monopoly on the use of lethal force specifically is positive.

I don’t care one way or another. Chris Pratt is a grown ass man and ought to know that you shouldn’t show your dick to people unless asked, especially at work. In the hypothetical scenario in which Amy Poehler didn’t feel like she could raise a stink about it until now, did so now, and Pratt got sacked from GotG3 now, that’s probably a small price to pay for moving the needle on the public’s understanding of appropriate penile etiquette.

This is what it comes down to for me as well. There should be no legal right to lethal self defense. Not because there are no situations in which it is warranted, rather because the aggregate cost for society to behave and to be armed to act in this matter is a net negative.

Yes. The cost to society is too great.

I generally agree with these and and of the opinion that if you’re carrying around a gun with the notion that you need to be able to protect yourself with lethal force at any time you’re far more likely to see lethal intent where none exists.

Also I’m not sure you were aware, but black people were involved.

I don’t know that I’d go that far but I’d support the notion that the economy is going to matter much, much more than shit like this or the Mueller investigation. Those are side shows. I can’t think of an incumbent in the modern era that lost when the economy / job market was strong, unless I’m missing someone. Trump is a different kind of president but I don’t know if he’s different enough to matter in that respect.

Ah right on thanks. Forgot it was on twitter and was trolling my browsing history with no joy.

Someone wrote recently to the effect that it’s possible to miss the camel’s back breaking when you’re insisting that each straw that gets added is practically weightless. I’d agree with that. But even with that in mind, in a week during which Trump might have committed some light treason? This specifically seems like nothing and it’s difficult to imaging anyone giving a fuck about it in 2 years.

I can’t believe “dark” takes on initially light hearted comic franchises are still a fucking thing in 2018.

YO MY BAD

You could split an atom with the razor you’re using to split that hair.

No.

There are countless ways one could describe Putin having one over on Trump. People going to the notion that Trump is Putin’s bottom for a specific reason, not randomly, not for no reason, etc. I’m honestly blown away by the mental gymnastics here. Again, you’re giving the people saying this way too much credit. This isn’t “in any context.” The context is very specific. If people were saying, “Trump is submissive to Putin,” I’d agree that there’s a lack of context and that drawing a line from those words to dom/sub relationships is a stretch. Saying “Trump takes it in the ass from Putin” is really fucking specific. Looking into the literal meaning of those words and divorcing them from the context that was absolutely and deliberately intended is fishing for nuance that just isn’t there. And anyone who says stuff like, “man it must be hard for Trump to walk around with Putin’s dick in his ass,” but who DOESN’T intend for that to be suggest negative things about homosexuality should chose their words more carefully.

I just don’t think it’s worth making. The implication is pretty clear.

Except “business owners” haven’t been historically discriminated against, being a business owner isn’t a personal trait, etc. This is a pretty lousy apples to oranges comparison. Yuuuup.

Again, I think this is giving the people saying this stuff far too much credit. Besides, even if you’re going to take that angle... there’s nothing negative about being a sub, either. It’s a lazy fucking “criticism” all around.

They absolutely mean it pejoratively. It might not be “anti-gay” in the most literal sense, but the implication is unquestionably that Trump and Putin being gay for one another is negative. Looking for nuance in this situation is giving the people slinging the remarks MUCH more credit than they deserve. The notion that Trump is so beholden to Putin that he takes it in the ass from him is unquestionably implying that Trump is weak because he lets another man fuck him. It doesn’t “not count” when it’s political commentary. I don’t get that at all.

I think it’s certainly possible to say, “those two are gay for one another” without it being anti-gay, but the, “Trump and Putin are totally gay for one another,” is absolutely pejorative.

Part of my issue with MI:II is that they explain the plot in detail over and over and over.

Toplel

You mean a technocratic libertarian organization is a poorly organized shitshow? Shocking.