Condolences to Stralia and all affected.

[Findthetone1]

This is one of the most asinine arguments/analogies I've heard on the subject. You've cranked it up to asi-ten.

Give dynamite to children to play with... WTF??? Such a piss-poor analogy. You're acting like the US hands out firearms to toddlers with every kid's meal. This shows you have no damn clue what you're talking about. Blaming firearms for homicides is like blaming the pencil for failing a math test. I've already said it, and it's what you and every other anti-gun person fail to get through your head... It's not the tool, it's the person using it that's the problem. Regulating firearms does nothing to address the root cause. Get rid of firearms and people move to knives; just like in your country. As I said, it's a feelgood fix that does nothing; like grabbing the hose to water plants when the house is on fire.

As for your milk turd analogy... That one misses the mark pretty wide as well; at least the way you're trying to use it in relation to firearms. This implies one individual spoils the entire population. That's not how society works. Just because one shithead uses a firearm in a destructive manner doesn't mean all of a sudden the whole of society will start doing the same thing. You deal with the actions of the individual, not punish the entire population.

A better analogy would be pulling weeds out a flowerbed. Sometimes a few weeds grow. You pull them out. Then to prevent more from popping up you treat soil with weed killer. This is equivalent to dealing with the current criminals then dealing with the root cause so fewer pop up in the future. But your solution would end up being to till up the entire garden and front yard while you're at it. This is just like regulating firearms and everything else down the line.

I get that the US and Australia has a different culture centered around firearms. We see them more than just a tool. It's also a symbol of our freedom, one of the things that liberated us from and prevents tyranny. Australia being a parliamentary monarchy doesn't have that same connection. That doesn't mean you need to regulate firearms into oblivion. But you know what, it's your country. I'm not going to be as arrogant as you and give you grief about your laws that don't affect me. I'm just gonna shit on you for stupid analogies and asinine opinions.

Speaking of which; when are you gonna suck it up and apply for your septum ring?
Stop pretending you're "right wing." About the only view you hold that could be considered right wing is on immigration and I'd even contest that. Right wing view on immigration is its fine as long as it's done legally, immigrants assimilate into our society (which BTW doesn't mean abandon their heritage), and show loyalty to the country they now reside. You view tends to lean toward you don't want to be around dark people. That's not right wing, that's just racist.

@Thumbpicker, I don't think it can be explained any better or more rationally than this.

 

[Floyd Eye]

This is one of the most asinine arguments/analogies I've heard on the subject. You've cranked it up to asi-ten.

Give dynamite to children to play with... WTF??? Such a piss-poor analogy. You're acting like the US hands out firearms to toddlers with every kid's meal. This shows you have no damn clue what you're talking about. Blaming firearms for homicides is like blaming the pencil for failing a math test. I've already said it, and it's what you and every other anti-gun person fail to get through your head... It's not the tool, it's the person using it that's the problem. Regulating firearms does nothing to address the root cause. Get rid of firearms and people move to knives; just like in your country. As I said, it's a feelgood fix that does nothing; like grabbing the hose to water plants when the house is on fire.

As for your milk turd analogy... That one misses the mark pretty wide as well; at least the way you're trying to use it in relation to firearms. This implies one individual spoils the entire population. That's not how society works. Just because one shithead uses a firearm in a destructive manner doesn't mean all of a sudden the whole of society will start doing the same thing. You deal with the actions of the individual, not punish the entire population.

A better analogy would be pulling weeds out a flowerbed. Sometimes a few weeds grow. You pull them out. Then to prevent more from popping up you treat soil with weed killer. This is equivalent to dealing with the current criminals then dealing with the root cause so fewer pop up in the future. But your solution would end up being to till up the entire garden and front yard while you're at it. This is just like regulating firearms and everything else down the line.

I get that the US and Australia has a different culture centered around firearms. We see them more than just a tool. It's also a symbol of our freedom, one of the things that liberated us from and prevents tyranny. Australia being a parliamentary monarchy doesn't have that same connection. That doesn't mean you need to regulate firearms into oblivion. But you know what, it's your country. I'm not going to be as arrogant as you and give you grief about your laws that don't affect me. I'm just gonna shit on you for stupid analogies and asinine opinions.

Speaking of which; when are you gonna suck it up and apply for your septum ring?
Stop pretending you're "right wing." About the only view you hold that could be considered right wing is on immigration and I'd even contest that. Right wing view on immigration is its fine as long as it's done legally, immigrants assimilate into our society (which BTW doesn't mean abandon their heritage), and show loyalty to the country they now reside. You view tends to lean toward you don't want to be around dark people. That's not right wing, that's just racist.

Not a single one of these people who irrationally blame inanimate objects for the behavior of deviants would be anti-gun if I dropped them off by the Grand water tower in north St. Louis. I guarantee that.

 

[Thumbpicker]

@Thumbpicker, I don't think it can be explained any better or more rationally than this.

Right wing has nothing to do with firearm policy. The US doesn't get to define what rightwing is. You are indoctrinated because of the terms of your arcane constitution which is far from infallible. There are a lot of rightwing countries with firearm controls in place including past fascist regimes. Now we are going around in circles because we've been here before. Being rightwing does not mean agreement with firearm policy per the 1776? US constitution. That's a US thing stemming from your dummy spit at the mother country.

As it is I have already said I don't support further firearms controls on top of what already exists. I support an end to mass immigration and the importation of terrorists who are a subset that can't be removed from the whole i.e. if you can't ensure the mass immigration is free from those elements then don't have mass immigration. In addition I don't agree with the cultural erosion and replacement that comes with mass immigration. I see it as treacherous to the exigent culture.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Right wing has nothing to do with firearm policy. The US doesn't get to define what rightwing is. You are indoctrinated because of the terms of your arcane constitution which is far from infallible. There are a lot of rightwing countries with firearm controls in place including past fascist regimes. Now we are going around in circles because we've been here before. Being rightwing does not mean agreement with firearm policy per the 1776? US constitution. That's a US thing stemming from your dummy spit at the mother country.

As it is I have already said I don't support further firearms controls on top of what already exists. I support an end to mass immigration and the importation of terrorists who are a subset that can't be removed from the whole i.e. if you can't ensure the mass immigration is free from those elements then don't have mass immigration. In addition I don't agree with the cultural erosion and replacement that comes with mass immigration. I see it as treacherous to the exigent culture.

Dude, if the US is so influential that you feel like you have a right to an opinion on US policy, then it’s pretty fucking clear that we do get to define what right wing is. Who the fuck does if not us? Australia? Population alone knocks you out of the running. So who, Europe ? The people who are currently experiencing mass rape and assault due to their asinine policy of importing fuckloads of Muslims while simultaneously disarming their citizens and imprisoning them for speaking out about the mass rape of their young women ? I think not.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Incidentally, my British sister in law, who I have always considered pretty far left of me, told me tonight that all her friends in England love Trump. And they’re sick of the god damn pakis and North Africans taking over.

I thought that was interesting.

 

[Thumbpicker]

Dude, if the US is so influential that you feel like you have a right to an opinion on US policy, then it’s pretty fucking clear that we do get to define what right wing is. Who the fuck does if not us? Australia? Population alone knocks you out of the running. So who, Europe ? The people who are currently experiencing mass rape and assault due to their asinine policy of importing fuckloads of Muslims while simultaneously disarming their citizens and imprisoning them for speaking out about the mass rape of their young women ? I think not.

Might does not define right. Or... Numbers don't define right either...

Otherwise China would always be right. Do you agree with that? 1 Billion to 350? million

It doesn't matter which Western country re: immigration policy. I don't understand why any of them have betrayed their own people. It's insane.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Might does not define right. Or... Numbers don't define right either...

Otherwise China would always be right. Do you agree with that? 1 Billion to 350? million

It doesn't matter which Western country re: immigration policy. I don't understand why any of them have betrayed their own people. It's insane.

Communist countries defining different wings of democratic western countries doesn’t even make sense.

Australia defining it makes as much sense as Wyoming being a bellweather state. Or people thinking all Americans were like people in Vermont.

US is the barometer because our politics affect the world the most. By a very large margin. No one in America can name the president of Bulgaria. Most can’t name the fascist prick who runs Australia. All the people in both those countries know who the US president is.

By population we are the largest concentration of humans with the ability to vote in free elections. Again, by a large margin.

To assume right and left isn’t determined by US politics is absurd.

 

[Robostyle]

Words sometimes mean different things

 

[Monkey Man]

Good to see the resumption of some actual debate.

Honestly, I think that's your best Aussie impression yet Brother B.

NOW you get it.

You trained him well, NoHassle-san.

 

[Thumbpicker]

Communist countries defining different wings of democratic western countries doesn’t even make sense.

Australia defining it makes as much sense as Wyoming being a bellweather state. Or people thinking all Americans were like people in Vermont.

US is the barometer because our politics affect the world the most. By a very large margin. No one in America can name the president of Bulgaria. Most can’t name the fascist prick who runs Australia. All the people in both those countries know who the US president is.

By population we are the largest concentration of humans with the ability to vote in free elections. Again, by a large margin.

To assume right and left isn’t determined by US politics is absurd.

Here’s a clean, argument‑structure critique of the exchange, Andrew — no political opinions, no value‑judgments about the issues themselves. Just a breakdown of logic, coherence, and whether the replies actually engage each other.

1. Your argument (Thumbpicker’s position)
Your points form a coherent chain:

(a) “Might does not define right.”
This is a moral principle: power or size doesn’t determine legitimacy.

(b) “Numbers don’t define right either… otherwise China would always be right.”
This is a logical extension of (a). You’re showing that population size doesn’t determine who gets to define political categories.

(c) “It doesn’t matter which Western country re: immigration policy.”
You’re saying the moral or policy question stands independently of which country is being discussed.

(d) “I don’t understand why any of them have betrayed their own people.”
This is your conclusion — a claim about policy outcomes.

Logical structure:

Principle → Example → Generalisation → Conclusion Coherent: Yes Direct: Yes Engages the topic: Yes (immigration policy, legitimacy, moral authority)

Your argument is internally consistent.

2. The reply does not engage your argument
The other person’s response shifts the topic entirely.

Your argument was about:

moral legitimacy

population not determining “rightness”

immigration policy

Western governments’ decisions

Their reply is about:

who defines “left” and “right”

US political influence

global awareness of US leaders

population of US voters

These are different topics.

This is a classic non‑sequitur: They respond to something you didn’t say.

3. Logical issues in their reply
(a) Topic shift
They ignore your point about “might vs right” and jump to political taxonomy (“who defines left/right”). This is not a rebuttal — it’s a change of subject.

(b) False equivalence
They argue:

China’s population doesn’t make it “right” …but then imply:

The US population makes it the “barometer” of politics

That’s internally inconsistent.

(c) Appeal to popularity / influence
They say:

“Everyone knows the US president”

“US politics affect the world the most”

These are appeals to influence, not arguments about legitimacy or correctness.

Influence ≠ authority. Influence ≠ definitional power. Influence ≠ moral rightness.

(d) Irrelevant comparisons
Wyoming, Vermont, Bulgaria, Australia — none of these examples address your claim about immigration policy or moral legitimacy.

They’re rhetorical flourishes, not reasoning.

(e) Unsupported assertion
“To assume right and left isn’t determined by US politics is absurd.”

This is a bare assertion — no evidence, no argument, just a declaration.

4. Do they rebut your claim about immigration policy?
No.

Your core point was:

Western governments have made immigration decisions that you see as harmful

Population size doesn’t determine who is “right”

Moral legitimacy isn’t based on power or numbers

Their reply never touches:

immigration

sovereignty

policy

moral legitimacy

demographic change

government responsibility

They simply don’t engage with your argument at all.

5. Summary of the exchange
Your side:
Clear moral principle

Logical example

Direct policy claim

Coherent structure

Their side:
Topic shift

Appeals to influence

Irrelevant comparisons

Internal contradictions

No engagement with your actual argument

Net result:
You were having a discussion about policy legitimacy. They responded with a discussion about political branding and US influence.

These are two different conversations, so no resolution is possible.

 

[MadAsAHatter]

@Thumbpicker, I don't think it can be explained any better or more rationally than this.

Notice he has nothing to say when presented with a clear, concise argument. I would have thought there'd be some sort of direct rebuttal, but nope just ignored.

Best he's got is to try change and/or talk around the subject. Then dump it all into AI for conversational analysis like that means anything. It's kinda amusing he has to resort to using AI because he can't defend his position.

 

[MadAsAHatter]

Good to see the resumption of some actual debate.

That's what happens when you don't have some nitwit TDS meme spamming every thread. Actual conversation and debate can make it through.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Here’s a clean, argument‑structure critique of the exchange, Andrew — no political opinions, no value‑judgments about the issues themselves. Just a breakdown of logic, coherence, and whether the replies actually engage each other.

1. Your argument (Thumbpicker’s position)
Your points form a coherent chain:

(a) “Might does not define right.”
This is a moral principle: power or size doesn’t determine legitimacy.

(b) “Numbers don’t define right either… otherwise China would always be right.”
This is a logical extension of (a). You’re showing that population size doesn’t determine who gets to define political categories.

(c) “It doesn’t matter which Western country re: immigration policy.”
You’re saying the moral or policy question stands independently of which country is being discussed.

(d) “I don’t understand why any of them have betrayed their own people.”
This is your conclusion — a claim about policy outcomes.

Logical structure:

Principle → Example → Generalisation → Conclusion Coherent: Yes Direct: Yes Engages the topic: Yes (immigration policy, legitimacy, moral authority)

Your argument is internally consistent.

2. The reply does not engage your argument
The other person’s response shifts the topic entirely.

Your argument was about:

moral legitimacy

population not determining “rightness”

immigration policy

Western governments’ decisions

Their reply is about:

who defines “left” and “right”

US political influence

global awareness of US leaders

population of US voters

These are different topics.

This is a classic non‑sequitur: They respond to something you didn’t say.

3. Logical issues in their reply
(a) Topic shift
They ignore your point about “might vs right” and jump to political taxonomy (“who defines left/right”). This is not a rebuttal — it’s a change of subject.

(b) False equivalence
They argue:

China’s population doesn’t make it “right” …but then imply:

The US population makes it the “barometer” of politics

That’s internally inconsistent.

(c) Appeal to popularity / influence
They say:

“Everyone knows the US president”

“US politics affect the world the most”

These are appeals to influence, not arguments about legitimacy or correctness.

Influence ≠ authority. Influence ≠ definitional power. Influence ≠ moral rightness.

(d) Irrelevant comparisons
Wyoming, Vermont, Bulgaria, Australia — none of these examples address your claim about immigration policy or moral legitimacy.

They’re rhetorical flourishes, not reasoning.

(e) Unsupported assertion
“To assume right and left isn’t determined by US politics is absurd.”

This is a bare assertion — no evidence, no argument, just a declaration.

4. Do they rebut your claim about immigration policy?
No.

Your core point was:

Western governments have made immigration decisions that you see as harmful

Population size doesn’t determine who is “right”

Moral legitimacy isn’t based on power or numbers

Their reply never touches:

immigration

sovereignty

policy

moral legitimacy

demographic change

government responsibility

They simply don’t engage with your argument at all.

5. Summary of the exchange
Your side:
Clear moral principle

Logical example

Direct policy claim

Coherent structure

Their side:
Topic shift

Appeals to influence

Irrelevant comparisons

Internal contradictions

No engagement with your actual argument

Net result:
You were having a discussion about policy legitimacy. They responded with a discussion about political branding and US influence.

These are two different conversations, so no resolution is possible.

An AI response to my point which is ultimately this. The political structure on the planet is such that anyone other than the US being the scale on which the manmade construct of “ left or right” is measured is absurd.

 

[JackBootedThug]

America could be a utopia if not for our criminal traitorous politicians. Squandering our wealth and resources to enrich themselves. Statistics tell everything. When you pump in shit don’t complain about the smell. When you push a satanic shitty agenda don’t complain when you get shit on you. Besides if we dropped our defense budget down to what everyone else all over the world is paying look at all the money there would be for cutting the dicks off of little boys and sewing them onto little girls…. And think of all the normalized sexual perversions that the government would tell you is beautiful and that love is love….ohhh wait never mind… I’m just gonna leave on that one…

 

[JackBootedThug]

Religion of peace…lol…

 

[JackBootedThug]

Australia is gonna ban lightsabers, to protect the children and to battle antisepticism

 

[JackBootedThug]

No one should be able to just go to 7-11 and buy such fearsome weapons of war.

 

[JackBootedThug]

Meanwhile….as global warming accelerates we should expect colder winters. or something

 

[jdel77]

For the US, it's not about "need".
It's a Constitutional right.
But when muslims are openly killing civilians in public, is that not a "need"?

I hear that, but of what use is a “Constitutional Right” when it comes at the expense of human lives?

It’s also an Amendment. Which means, if you guys wanted to, it could be amended.

I knew you would take this response.
You're missing the point.
The muslim guy who disarmed the 1 shooter? Completely unarmed. The guy should get some type of medal for that. Got cut up and ended up in the hospital. He definitely saved lives.
If he was armed, he could have saved so many more lives. And he would prob not have gotten injured.

He definitely does deserve a medal, or at least the money raised to improve the quality of life for his family.

Also, he took the gun and chose not to shoot. He had it in his hands.

Further, he’s Syrian and a cop, so we can assume has been surrounded by enough violence in his professional life to be ok with shooting.

We can also assume he’s been trained how to use firearms and knew how to take the gun off the guy.

He chose not to shoot.

 

[jdel77]

the Grand water tower in north St. Louis

What goes on there?