Unpopular Opinions - OP Updated with Threadban List 4/5/21

the beer revolu

Quazzie wrote: »

But the people in the breast cancer event are burning down restaurants and emptying shops.

And who's condoning that?
I don't hear too many people.

KiKi III

Quazzie wrote: »

But the people in the breast cancer event are burning down restaurants and emptying shops.

Most of the protesters aren’t either. It’s mentioned across the media that most of the protest has been peaceful but scenes of rioting and looting lead the news becAuse of the old maxim “if it bleeds, it leads”

the beer revolu

Mad_maxx wrote: »

young people today lack independent mindedness

Perhaps it's because old people view them and treat them like a homogeneous group?

Do tell me that your line was actually a clever joke. It's rather like the, "we're all individuals", gag in The Life of Brian.

KiKi III

the beer revolu wrote: »

I'm sorry about your grandmother. Strange times for bereavement.

Honestly, I think your nephew has been extremely sheltered if, as a smart kid, he hasn't grasped the finality of death at 7.

You might be arguing that taxAH's children are over exposed to life but I'd argue that your nephew has been over sheltered.

Maybe so. But I used to teach Grade 1 and 2 abroad and most of the Grade 1 kids wouldn’t have been able to tie their own shoes, had poor coordination (as in generally appropriate for their age but regularly tripping, slipping, spilling) and definitely did not have the emotional maturity or physical dexterity to fire a gun.

The idea that it’s easier to train a five year old to use a gun correctly than a 12 year old goes against everything we know about intelligence and maturity.

I’ll accept that for TaxAHCruel and the other guy it has worked out okay while still feeling it’s generally a bad idea.

And if a small child shoots and kills someone by accident I think the parent that put a gun in their hand should be charged with manslaughter.

the beer revolu

KiKi III wrote: »

Maybe so. But I used to teach Grade 1 and 2 abroad and most of the Grade 1 kids wouldn’t have been able to tie their own shoes, had poor coordination (as in generally appropriate for their age but regularly tripping, slipping, spilling) and definitely did not have the emotional maturity or physical dexterity to fire a gun.

The idea that it’s easier to train a five year old to use a gun correctly than a 12 year old goes against everything we know about intelligence and maturity.

I’ll accept that for TaxAHCruel and the other guy it has worked out okay while still feeling it’s generally a bad idea.

And if a small child shoots and kills someone by accident I think the parent that put a gun in their hand should be charged with manslaughter.

But no one is giving a child a gun and sending them out to play with it. No one, not ever.

No one with a hint of an idea about guns would EVER leave a child unsupervised with a gun.

I assume Tax didn't spell this out as he took it as a given.

The Raging Bile Duct

Quazzie wrote: »

But the people in the breast cancer event are burning down restaurants and emptying shops.

Breast cancer victims are hardly victims of systemic prejudice for decades/centuries.

KiKi III

the beer revolu wrote: »

But no one is giving a child a gun and sending them out to play with it. No one, not ever.

No one with a hint of an idea about guns would EVER leave a child unsupervised with a gun.

I assume Tax didn't spell this out as he took it as a given.

You say that but it happens quite regularly in the US. Even a child who’s parent is three feet away monitoring them could accidentally shoot a sibling.

Five (or even nine) is too young for a lethal weapon. The danger far outweighs any potential benefits.

ohnonotgmail

KiKi III wrote: »

Maybe so. But I used to teach Grade 1 and 2 abroad and most of the Grade 1 kids wouldn’t have been able to tie their own shoes, had poor coordination (as in generally appropriate for their age but regularly tripping, slipping, spilling) and definitely did not have the emotional maturity or physical dexterity to fire a gun.

The idea that it’s easier to train a five year old to use a gun correctly than a 12 year old goes against everything we know about intelligence and maturity.

I’ll accept that for TaxAHCruel and the other guy it has worked out okay while still feeling it’s generally a bad idea.

And if a small child shoots and kills someone by accident I think the parent that put a gun in their hand should be charged with manslaughter.

yeah you would think that but not in america. Remember the kid who killed an instructor on a range with an uzi? No charges against them or anybody for that matter.

the beer revolu

KiKi III wrote: »

You say that but it happens quite regularly in the US. Even a child who’s parent is three feet away monitoring them could accidentally shoot a sibling.

Five (or even nine) is too young for a lethal weapon. The danger far outweighs any potential benefits.

This is more of an argument against gun ownership generally. A reasonable argument.

If a child shoots a sibling with a gun, they weren't properly supervised. No question. No child should be allowed near a gun without proper supervision - ever.

Imagine a scenario where a child, for some reason, comes across a loaded gun. Let's say under a bush in the park.
Would it be better if the child had an understanding of how dangerous and lethat a gun can be or would it be better that the child was clueless, picked up the gun and started pointing it at everyone around them?

In this situation, I'd rather Tax's 5 year old found the gun than the majority of other kids.

ohnonotgmail

the beer revolu wrote: »

This is more of an argument against gun ownership generally. A reasonable argument.

If a child shoots a sibling with a gun, they weren't properly supervised. No question. No child should be allowed near a gun without proper supervision - ever.

Imagine a scenario where a child, for some reason, comes across a loaded gun. Let's say under a bush in the park.
Would it be better if the child had an understanding of how dangerous and lethat a gun can be or would it be better that the child was clueless, picked up the gun and started pointing it at everyone around them?

In this situation, I'd rather Tax's 5 year old found the gun than the majority of other kids.

no matter how well supervised you think a child there is still potential for them to kill somebody. see my example in the post before yours of a shooting instructor killed by a little girl with an uzi on a shootinf range. I dont think you can get more supervised than that.

The Raging Bile Duct

I'm always finding loaded guns under a bush in the park. It's an awful pain in the hole...

KiKi III

the beer revolu wrote: »

This is more of an argument against gun ownership generally. A reasonable argument.

If a child shoots a sibling with a gun, they weren't properly supervised. No question. No child should be allowed near a gun without proper supervision - ever.

Imagine a scenario where a child, for some reason, comes across a loaded gun. Let's say under a bush in the park.
Would it be better if the child had an understanding of how dangerous and lethat a gun can be or would it be better that the child was clueless, picked up the gun and started pointing it at everyone around them?

In this situation, I'd rather Tax's 5 year old found the gun than the majority of other kids.

So you think no parent leaves a child unsupervised with a gun, but gun owners regularly leave loaded guns lying around under bushes in parks?

Pretty far fetched I’d say.

Mad_maxx

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

Donald Trump is the best President the US has had since JFK.

JFK wasnt that amazing , ronald reagan was the best U.S president since FDR and the last great american president, thats not to say he was a great human being , good people dont get to become leaders of nations or at least nice people dont , reagan however had extrordinary popularity , he won everywhere on both occasions and no leader more truly embodied the american character like he did , his appeal didnt stretch beyond america as most people dont think like americans , im not saying thats a good or a bad thing BTW but the ideals of america were most accurately represented in ronald reagan , this absolute devotion to liberty and freedom was what changed the direction of the cold war and for that reagan alone is great , i know one man cannot win a war but the contrast between 1980 and 1989 in terms of soviet containment was incredible

trump isnt near as awful as many like to claim but hes hardly good either ?

the beer revolu

KiKi III wrote: »

And if a small child shoots and kills someone by accident I think the parent that put a gun in their hand should be charged with manslaughter.

Totally agree.
And I'd imagine that most people who advocate for children being properly trained in using weapons would agree with you, too.

Look, I'm not saying that I think all children should be trained in safe weapon use (parhaps in the USA, they all should be) but I just don't see a problem with what TaxAH is doing.

the beer revolu

KiKi III wrote: »

So you think no parent leaves a child unsupervised with a gun, but gun owners regularly leave loaded guns lying around under bushes in parks?

Pretty far fetched I’d say.

No parent should ever, ever leave a child unsupervised with a gun.
We can agree on that.

Gun owners do leave children unsupervised with guns.
We can agree on that.

I'm not going to respond to the last bit as I never said that.

the beer revolu

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no matter how well supervised you think a child there is still potential for them to kill somebody. see my example in the post before yours of a shooting instructor killed by a little girl with an uzi on a shootinf range. I dont think you can get more supervised than that.

Proof is in the pudding.
The child was not adequately supervised.

KiKi III

the beer revolu wrote: »

No parent should ever, ever leave a child unsupervised with a gun.
We can agree on that.

Gun owners do leave children unsupervised with guns.
We can agree on that.

I'm not going to respond to the last bit as I never said that.

It’s the scenario you outlined? I find it far more far fetched that a gun owner would leave a loaded gun in a park than a parent supervising a child with a gun getting distracted for a minute or two by another child or a phone ringing.

And you’ve changed from “no parent would ever” to “no parent should ever” in the space of two posts.

KiKi III

the beer revolu wrote: »

Proof is in the pudding.
The child was not adequately supervised.

Right, and if the five year old was not adequately supervised but they were playing with LEGO or a football no one would die because those aren’t lethal weapons.

ohnonotgmail

the beer revolu wrote: »

Proof is in the pudding.
The child was not adequately supervised.

supervised by a shooting instructor on a shooting range with her family close by. all those adults around and she still killed somebody. your post sounds like a ridiculous "no true scotsman" fallacy.

the beer revolu

KiKi III wrote: »

It’s the scenario you outlined? I find it far more far fetched that a gun owner would leave a loaded gun in a park than a parent supervising a child with a gun getting distracted for a minute or two by another child or a phone ringing.

And you’ve changed from “no parent would ever” to “no parent should ever” in the space of two posts.

OK.
Let's imagine you are in the house of a gun owner (I'm not pro gun ownership, BTW).
Let's say that there are a bunch of kids there.

Now, obviously, a responsible gun owner would never leave his/her gun lying around, particularly loaded. But, as you say, it does happen.
It shouldn't. We agree. But it does and, in this scenario, it has happened that the incredibly irresponsible gun owner has done so.

I am in no way condoning this hypothetical situation. OK?

So the kids find the loaded gun.
Would you prefer that a child who has been trained in the safe use of a gun, one who understands that it can kill, finds it or would you prefer that a child who understands nothing about guns and thinks it's a toy finds it?

No bushes or parks.

Straight answer please.

KiKi III

the beer revolu wrote: »

OK.
Let's imagine you are in the house of a gun owner (I'm not pro gun ownership, BTW).
Let's say that there are a bunch of kids there.

Now, obviously, a responsible gun owner would never leave his/her gun lying around, particularly loaded. But, as you say, it does happen.
It shouldn't. We agree. But it does and, in this scenario, it has happened that the incredibly irresponsible gun owner has done so.

I am in no way condoning this hypothetical situation. OK?

So the kids find the loaded gun.
Would you prefer that a child who has been trained in the safe use of a gun, one who understands that it can kill, finds it or would you prefer that a child who understands nothing about guns and thinks it's a toy finds it?

No bushes or parks.

Straight answer please.

If a small child is growing up in a house with guns I think they should be trained to treat it the same way they are trained to deal with open fires: don’t get too near it, don’t touch it, it’s very very dangerous and it’s not for children.

And if you think a child is not going to understand that but they’ll understand gun safety, I’ll just draw a line underneath the argument here.

the beer revolu

KiKi III wrote: »

If a small child is growing up in a house with guns I think they should be trained to treat it the same way they are trained to deal with open fires: don’t get too near it, don’t touch it, it’s very very dangerous and it’s not for children.

And if you think a child is not going to understand that but they’ll understand gun safety, I’ll just draw a line underneath the argument here.

You didn't answer a very straight question that I put to you.
Which child would you rather find the gun.
It's a very plausible scenario, in the US, at least.

Quazzie

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

Breast cancer victims are hardly victims of systemic prejudice for decades/centuries.

So, does being a victim justify the looting, and burning down of people's properties?

KiKi III

the beer revolu wrote: »

You didn't answer a very straight question that I put to you.
Which child would you rather find the gun.
It's a very plausible scenario, in the US, at least.

I wouldn’t choose either of the options you outlined. We don’t live in a binary world where there are only those two choices. I’d take the education piece from what you said - teaching them that guns can kill, without teaching them the mechanics of using it.

the beer revolu

Quazzie wrote: »

So, does being a victim justify the looting, and burning down of people's properties?

Again, I ask. Who's justifying it?

Quazzie

the beer revolu wrote: »

Again, I ask. Who's justifying it?

It would appear that The Raging Bile Duct is going from their statement.

KiKi III

Quazzie wrote: »

It would appear that The Raging Bile Duct is going from their statement.

You can explain something and even understand the reasons it’s happening without condoning it.

Most irish people can understand that when you’ve been oppressed for a certain amount of time and you’ve tried again and again to change things through politics, at a certain point violence can seem like the only option.

The Raging Bile Duct

Quazzie wrote: »

It would appear that The Raging Bile Duct is going from their statement.

I'm not condoning it. I'm just pointing out the inanity of the comparison.

KiKi III

KiKi III wrote: »

I wouldn’t expect him to know better than he does.

Agreed. And for that child you are likely entirely right. But as I said they vary so wildly I would simply never take an experience with one child onto another.

My children understood death earlier. Probably because

A) They do not play those computer games and we do not own a TV and
I hunt - keep - then kill rabbit and fish for meat.

So from an early age rather than seeing the dead come back to life in games - they saw the dead stay very much dead. When they come home and say "Daddy where is fluffles" and I answer "He is in the saucepan" - they quickly learned what dead means. And they stopped naming the rabbit I caught without me suggesting it.

And I do not expose them to priests selling ideas of everlasting life either. I told them from an early age what I think of the idea of god/religion - and it seems to have stuck with them because I told them specifically in a way that a child would understand what I think religion is because I knew it would appeal to how they think. They do not buy into those tales at all as a result. I also never did the Santa thing with them.

Age is a good guide of course - I would never dismiss it entirely. But as I said - one thing you do as a parent is see past their age and gauge what they as an individual are likely capable of - and not.

KiKi III wrote: »

So you think no parent leaves a child unsupervised with a gun, but gun owners regularly leave loaded guns lying around under bushes in parks?

In general I am not sure where I stand on Gun Ownership. It's not for me anyway. I am open minded on the arguments as to whether anyone should be allowed to own one at home. Both sides have points I can not just hand wave away. I would definitely be in the camp of thinking that if we ever did allow ownership - that it should be every bit as difficult to get a license for one as it is to get a license for a car in a country like Germany.

That said I have been working towards buying a cross bow

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no matter how well supervised you think a child there is still potential for them to kill somebody.

Agreed. And not just with guns. A friend of mine recently nearly had his 5 year old lose an eye permanently because of an unsupervised 2 year old with a fork.

I am not for helicopter or obsessive parenting. But as a parent I think I have got a fairly strong sense of when and when not to go full on with supervision.

But gun - or fork - or playground - or sport - or pet dog - or anything else - even if we all do perfect supervision all of the time there will _still_ always be stories like the one you mention where no amount of supervision prevented an awful event going down.

And the single story of an awful thing happening always affects the human brain harder than the 1 million stories where nothing at all happened and everything was A-OK. Seems just how our brain works.