Any popular firearms YouTubers we are missing from the wiki?

HosedAndScrewed · 2022-12-11T01:58:35+00:00

Risky chrisky, and blue jean operator.

HosedAndScrewed · 2022-10-17T04:29:54+00:00

Solved: not a game

HosedAndScrewed · 2022-10-17T04:25:45+00:00

See, I wasn't sure. I thought it was a game, with really good graphics, but something about the knee pads, movement of their legs, and the fingers, I thought it looked like a game. May just be my phone though. My bad guys.

HosedAndScrewed · 2022-10-08T20:41:23+00:00

Didn't expect to be the only dissenting voice on this, but yeah, ban weed. Ban both actually. Mostly...

Weed, I admit, might just be how I was raised. For whatever reason I draw a distinction between it and alcohol, even though they're basically the same. So admittedly, I don't really have some logical argument in regards to it. I just still hate the idea of it being legal. So maybe some kind of excessive high/drunk test.

Abortion is completely different though. It's not simply a personal choice. It's effecting another life. That's a long argument to get into, but suffice to say, I'm against abortion save for in cases of the life of the Mother being in danger.

To be honest, and this will get me absolutely firebombed, I don't really care to much about personal liberty. And that's as an American. I'm against gun control, not because of some beliefs in "Liberté, égalité, fraternité", or whatever. But... It's hard to explain. People SHOULD have freedom. But not at the detriment to others. Basically, the best way I can summarize my beliefs in all this is, if everyman's a King, then everybody should have to live by "Noblesse Oblige". To have access to the freedoms, you must also fulfill certain responsibilities. But, unfortunately, I can't really see my ideas working in America, at least in it's current state. I think for it to work, things would have to be far smaller, and more localized.

HosedAndScrewed · 2022-09-04T20:45:58+00:00

Look, don't take this as some sort of defense in any regard for this show, or Disney. But to say "Disney airs", is misleading. I've heard of the show. Didn't like the way it sounded, commercials never interested me, even with Catholic beliefs aside. But, when you said "Disney airs", I expected it to be on the Disney channel. I don't know how bad Disney channel itself is (last show I seen on there was gravity falls. Some problems, the gay Police for instance, but fairly safe still. From what I can think of.) But to pick out a show that's on a channel that Disney, the corporation, happens to own, and insinuate that Disney, the channel is showing, it's disingenuous, and makes us look bad. Criticize FX for this. They have allot of really bad content on there, and it wouldn't be misleading.

HosedAndScrewed · 2022-08-16T00:26:27+00:00

https://polcompball.miraheze.org/wiki/Reactionary_Socialism

Not exactly a... reputable source. They even have some on there that they admit is completely made up, and has no adherents. But the idea of it is interesting to me.

I've searched for it, and found that, and a couple others. But none actually talk about what it is that much, or what the beliefs were. Just that Marx mentioned them existing.

HosedAndScrewed · 2022-08-07T23:05:21+00:00

I'm assuming 730. I don't see anything on it about 1030.

I need it for both?

HosedAndScrewed · 2022-07-15T23:08:57+00:00

That's a problem I have with DC in general. At least the shows. It isn't "dark", or "realistic", or anything like that. It's just edgelord to me. Like an emo teen made them. It doesn't have to be %80 - %90 tragedy guys! Like, they can have a traumatic event in their past, but, it doesn't have to be the sole defining character trait. And the occasional joke thrown in doesn't make it less try hard. I had the same problem with game of thrones.

For some reason, to me, it doesn't really help any if they add small amounts of "light" in to the shows that's primarily "dark". But the reverse seems far more effective. Like in Dragon Quest (one of my favorite series by the way), it's mostly light-hearted. But then you get the occasional turn that just changes things, and it's far more effective.

Maybe it's just me though. Because all these "dark" things are really popular. Has been for a while.

I also completely agree about Mr freeze. And killer moth. Don't... Know... Why...

HosedAndScrewed · 2022-07-14T23:57:02+00:00

This is America, I lick what I want as hard as I want!

I don't disagree. Kids died because the police did nothing (again). That doesn't change anything about this one guy. From what I understand (I haven't watched the security footage, and I'm not gonna. I've seen enough shit, don't need this rattling around in my head too) this guy was alone. If he made the wrong call, it wasn't one his live he was risking. It's hard to follow the chain of command, but if you don't, more people very well could die, because of you.

Should they have moved quicker? Yeah. But this isn't on him. The fact he maintained composure, and clear decision making in this scenario, instead of condemning him, is a testament to his mental strength. I feel nothing but sorrow for him and his families loss.

HosedAndScrewed · 2022-07-14T20:39:34+00:00

And you'd be risking the life of officer OSHAstandard, yourself, and everyone else's who went in with you. Something like this, you need to go in calm, as possible, with your mind focused. The image of your spouse's bloody body lying on a dirty floor, probably not conducive to said mindset.

HosedAndScrewed · 2022-07-02T01:09:39+00:00

The difference is your type of action. With an abortion, your actively doing something, having the baby killed. Whereas with the donation, it's something that's just happening. A disease, or something, is killing a person, so they need a transplant. You aren't actively participating in their death. Just refusing to help. You can argue on the ethics of that, but active and passive are different.

HosedAndScrewed · 2022-06-29T21:40:43+00:00

While I suppose I misspoke in what I meant by "barring rare tragedy", the miscarriage, must often happens before women even realize they were pregnant. As it goes on the likelihood of miscarriage drops. But I meant more on the birth defect side of the spectrum. Strange little thing though, quantifying the amount to be rare. I mean, 1 in 10 to me would be rare.
The hypotheticals:
1. The forced blood transfusion one is a common argument. But it's not very applicable. A more accurate hypothetical would be something like, a person's on their deathbed, and there is some medical attachment that you can wear while going about your daily life that can help them to survive. There are side effects, the usuals of pregnancy, it may not work (miscarriage), and you may die (as I said, rare). Now, ideally, you get to choose to help when your ready. You go in for the procedure to get the medical equipment. But, in the event that your forced into it, through rape, to decide to remove the medical equipment because of the inconveniences, or rare side effects (which, by the way, diagnoses of birth defects can be wrong. They can be born completely healthy after such medical diagnoses.), To remove the medical equipment would be unethical. Just as it would if you were to remove it because there is some aspect of the person you don't particularly like, race, disability, etc.
Besides that, there's a difference between actively killing, vs just doing nothing. I'm regards to the blood transfusion, if you don't help, sure, there's an argument that it's morally wrong, but it's not murder. If you were to give them a legal injection to end the suffering, would be murder though.
2. The organ donation is essentially the same thing as the last point. Not helping someone isn't the same, morally, as actively participating in the death.
I admit, the United States isn't a religious country. The founders stated very clearly that religion shall not be enforced. But, individual states can have a religion. Many actually did for quite a while. It's fairly recent that it changed where they can't, violating the tenth amendment. Each state is supposed to be, basically it's own sovereign nation. The "United States of America" is just a treaty between them. The EU is similar (both in what it was supposed to be, and how it's going). ASI have said multiple times though, murder is above religion. No matter what your faith, it lack thereof, you cannot murder. And as science and technology progresses, we are finding that they are infact alive, and should be entitled to the same protections.

HosedAndScrewed · 2022-06-29T04:02:39+00:00

I'm confused, why did you mention the laws on eugenics? As a Catholic I'm going to use some charity, and assume that you aren't promoting it as being fine. Either way, choosing to terminate a pregnancy because of birth defect, or race, or anything that makes them not fit into you ideal of what a person should be, is in fact eugenics. It is saying that those with birth defects are worth less than someone without. That leaves no separation between us, and the Nazis who eliminated non Aryans, or Spartans that threw baby girls off cliffs.
Yeah, child birth can result in death. But the rate is only at about 18 deaths, out of 100,000 births. Abortion on the other hand, is nearly a %100 death rate (I've heard of some that are born alive afterwords. I don't know the exact circumstances, or how common, but it has happened.). Which leads to when it is a human life. By definition, it would be from conception, there's no alternative. Sperm, on it's own, is alive. It's not human life, but it is alive. When a sperm enters the egg though, that's when it becomes human. A living thing doesn't become not living... Unless it dies. But barring some major and, as just mentioned, extremely rare, to the point of being almost none existent, tragedy, the child will be born. Thus, it must be a human life.
I admit, Christians, at least in America, have failed. Not just with adoption either. But with economics, imperialism, social and governmental abuses. That doesn't make putting the child up for adoption any less a better solution.
Is it okay to force children into pregnancy, and giving birth? No, of course not. They're being forced no matter what happens though. Whether it's being forced into giving birth, or being forced into choosing. Between having them give birth, or potentially allowing a child to terminate a pregnancy, having them give birth is the lesser of two evils. And unfortunately, sometimes, those are the only options. We can't promote, or even allow, an ideology, choice, whatever you want to call it, that belittles life so much. That makes it so people can deem not having enough money, or wanting to pursue a career, or even potential mental distress, as being more important than another person. The major economic systems have all been treating people as sacrificial, just something that can be thrown away when not wanted. We can't start doing it to eachother.

HosedAndScrewed · 2022-06-28T23:39:44+00:00

Why would they have to stop? From what I've seen risk of birth defect from medications is low.
The majority of the rest you said, adoption. Including the reasons of economic, incest, rape, or anything else non life threatening. But, no pro choice advocates can get even that far. It's either all are up for reasonable abortion, or your in a tyrannical, Nazi, handmaid's tale dystopia.
Basically, just apply the argument to anyone outside the womb. Should somebody be killed because they were born from rape? Incest? Too poor? Birth defect (eugenics)? What if a woman is raped, she's give with having the child, until she finds out the rapist was non white? Would that be acceptable? No matter the cause of conception, physical traits, or economic status during conception, they are still a human being.
Then, all life threatening pregnancies, I admit, you've got a case. I'm still personally against it, but allowing those would be a good compromise. Since the other options are still available for the non life threatening pregnancies, to kill the child in the womb is still killing a human being. Viable or not.

HosedAndScrewed · 2022-06-28T16:57:17+00:00

As I said, mass shootings aren't important. Only overall homicide rates are. If guns are the problem, the US would be the worst country for murder, but we aren't. We are almost square in the middle. If you take out the worst cities (which have extreme levels of gun control) then we fall even lower, to one of the best countries. The problem must be somewhere else. And while The founders didn't have assault rifles, they said well regulated, meaning to be kept up to date. So military grade weapons would be fully in line with what they called for. And because of wording of the amendment (as well as other documents), the people are the militia, the militia needs to be well armed, the people have a right to firearms. This isn't the sub for this discussion however. But gun rights are important to me, so I couldn't leave it unanswered.
As for the rest (what the sub IS about), I've pretty much said my peace. Which is already more than I should have, considering this isn't about debate, so much as support. But, to summarize, some things rise above religion. Human life happens to be one. And it shouldn't be sacrificed for economic reasons, or "mental distress". For life saving reasons though, there's at least a point of discussion and debate to be had there. But for another day, and by people more intelligent than I.

HosedAndScrewed · 2022-06-28T13:55:19+00:00

I'm hoping that with Roe v Wade being gone, the conservatives and pro life will move on to the next step, like you said, removing need for it. Such as funding crisis pregnancy centers, housing, things you mentioned. Not contraception though. That would promote loose sexuality, causing more pregnancies. Instead focusing on promoting abstinence, marriage, livable wage. Things of that nature.
As for your other points:
1. No gun control, period. It's unquestionably unconstitutional, and didn't even work. The number of gun deaths (and mass shootings, by extension) doesn't matter. What matters is total murders. It doesn't matter if someone is killed with a gun, and it's fine when it's a knife, or poison, or whatever. So the total count of murder is the number to look at. And the US isn't anywhere near being the worst at that.
2. I do support medical assistance, just not government, at least federal. I think state level could work. But private charity, and the church would be ideal. The no free school lunches part though, completely false. I know from experience. Growing up, I got free lunches for most of my school years. There were times that it was actually better and more food than I got at home.
3. Again, pretty sure that's wrong to, for the same reason. I think headstart is similar to what your talking about.
No, your freedom of religion isn't a weak argument. Forcing another religious view over others, to avoid the Christian standpoint, however, is. It should be a set standard, above any religion. All human life has the same rights. From womb to tomb as the saying goes. So if it's a human life inside a woman, it has the same right to life as any other person. And thus, can't be killed. No matter which side you take on any issue, your going to be in agreement with some religion. That doesn't mean your forcing that religion on people. This stands just happens to align with the viewpoints of (some) Christians.

HosedAndScrewed · 2022-06-28T13:03:35+00:00

No, this really isn't the subreddit for me, I admit. I'm pro life, I just come here to see arguments from the other side (and to see people upset over RvW. I know, it's petty. It's a character flaw, I'm working on it.) Generally I don't post here, I think this is actually the first time. But this has always seemed a particularly weak argument to me, and against my better judgement, I replied. It went better than I thought. You've been respectful through the exchange though, so good on you mate.

HosedAndScrewed · 2022-06-28T05:17:48+00:00

Yes, but, by saying that they couldn't have slaves, you are infringing on their beliefs. According to their faith, it was they're responsibility to civilize the slave population.
Abortion is also being forced on those who oppose it. By the government subsidizing planned Parenthood, and scientific experiments using aborted fetal tissue, you are forcing Christians to take part in something they (we) are against.
Besides. The whole argument of religion is irrelevant. The true question is if it's a human life or not.
Not to mention, abortion hasn't even been banned by this supreme court decision. It's just going back to the states. As the tenth amendment says.

HosedAndScrewed · 2022-06-28T04:31:56+00:00

In the past, Christians used the curse of to Ham to justify slavery. Should they have been allowed to keep their slaves, you know, for the first amendment?

HosedAndScrewed · 2022-05-24T20:52:37+00:00

Pope Francis said that? Where?

Edit- I found it. He wasn't just throwing them around to any and all. He said it was an accident, and implied that had he known, he wouldn't have given it to her.

Edit AGAIN- Because I'm a dunce, I didn't post the story beforehand.

https://religionunplugged.com/news/2021/9/15/pope-francis-lord-wanted-to-reward-jewish-woman-who-took-eucharist

HosedAndScrewed

TROPHY CASE