|
Random Politics & Religion #00
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-06-21 00:53:53
My word, 3 dead in Australia since they outlawed guns 15 years ago. Yeah, there's plenty of ways to kill people if you want to. We've had more people killed in mass shootings in the last week than Australia has in a decade. Accessibility to guns definitely plays a part in that difference.
You do know the difference between Austria and Australia, right?
Yeah, I misread it without my glasses. My point still stands.
Cerberus.Laconic
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 235
By Cerberus.Laconic 2015-06-21 00:54:10
My word, 3 dead in Australia since they outlawed guns 15 years ago. Yeah, there's plenty of ways to kill people if you want to. We've had more people killed in mass shootings in the last week than Australia has in a decade. Accessibility to guns definitely plays a part in that difference.
To bad your word is a complete and total lie.
Quote: t is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
Cerberus.Laconic
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 235
By Cerberus.Laconic 2015-06-21 00:54:43
Yeah, I misread it without my glasses. My point still stands.
No, it doesn't.
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-06-21 01:06:58
1. We're talking about mass shootings, not singular acts of violence.
2. Australia's violent crime rate has continued a similar downward trend across almost all areas. Those numbers are heavily cherry-picked.
3. Australia has had 1 mass shooting in the last 20 years since the gun ban.
National Journal
Washington Post
Snopes
Rape rate in Australia is 5% higher than USA
It's also the only crime statistic where we rate better than Australia. Get your information from someone other than the NRA.
Cerberus.Laconic
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 235
By Cerberus.Laconic 2015-06-21 01:23:03
We're talking about mass shootings No kidding..
Those numbers are heavily cherry-picked.
You think yours are not? Hahaha.
Get your information from someone other than the NRA. Good ole stereotyping.
Just to play along we are talking about populations of 23mil vs. 300mil. Austria has 8mil people btw. Do we need to have a discussion about statistics now?
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-06-21 01:39:10
Your numbers are from a post on Free Republic, which are sourced from an NRA publication almost verbatim. I linked 4 different sources, all showing the same thing.
Also, rates are percentages, not totals. And while smaller pools will result in more volatile numbers, they aren't incompatible.
Australia has a fraction as many people, but they also have a fraction as many violent crimes. That's why they're expressed as a ratio (per one million people).
Also, that giant spike in violent crime in your example, it was a single incident that skewed the numbers for one year, the year their gun ban began. Look at the actual trends in various violent crimes that are listed in the articles I posted.
Cerberus.Laconic
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 235
By Cerberus.Laconic 2015-06-21 01:44:22
Actually I got it from here.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
that giant spike in violent crime in your example, it was a single incident that skewed the numbers for one year, the year their gun began. Mind pointing that out?
This?
Quote: In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
You mean they still have guns even though they banned them! The insanity!
Leviathan.Chaosx
Serveur: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-06-21 01:52:41
I tried to find a link between the NRA and UK's news outlet, The Independent, but no link was found.
I tried to find a similar link between the NRA and The Washington (D.C.) Examiner, no such link was found except that it's a conservative based source rather than The Independent, which is listed as center-left.
Someone is playing partisan politics here.
Perhaps there's a confusion between the NRA and the NCPA. Almost similar letters, but completely different organizations.
NRA = Nation Rifle Association.
NCPA = National Center for Policy Analysis
NCPA states:
Quote: It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
Although it [NCPA] states a non-partisan stance, it is labeled as a conservative think tank.
In short though, banning guns does not appear to have any affect on crime statistics, other than 'feels.'
Speaking of which there's this article:
Quote: "How is it that we as a nation still allow guns to fall into the hands of people whose hearts are filled with hate?" said Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton Saturday, her voice rising as she delivered her prepared remarks. "You can't watch massacre after massacre and not come to the conclusion that, as President Obama said, we must tackle this challenge with urgency and conviction."
"We can have common-sense gun reforms that keep them out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable while not penalizing responsible gun owners," Clinton said to sustained applause, as half of the 1,000 member San Francisco mayoral conference audience stood, reported USA Today.
Clinton's call for "common-sense" restrictions on firearms comes in the wake of Wednesday's Charleston, S.C., mass shooting by a 21-year-old white gunman that left nine black church members dead.
"It makes no sense that bipartisan legislation to require universal background checks would fail in Congress despite overwhelming public support," said Clinton, alluding to proposals put forth by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., after the Newtown elementary school shooting."It makes no sense that we couldn't come together to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers or people suffering from mental illness, even people on the terror watch list."
"I am not and will not be afraid to keep fighting for common-sense reforms and, along with you, achieve those on behalf of all who have been lost because of this senseless gun violence in our country," she said, reported the Hill.
Clinton also called for a serious national discussion on race, citing white people's fear of "the sight of young black man in a hoodie," "the offhand comment about not wanting 'those' people in the neighborhood," or "the cruel joke that goes unchallenged," as examples. "We can't hide from any of these hard truths about race and justice in America," she said. "We have to name them and own them and then change them."
"Once again, bodies are being carried out of a black church," she said. "It is tempting to dismiss [this tragedy] as an isolated incident."
"Just as earlier generations threw off the chains of slavery, and then segregation and Jim Crow — this generation will not be shackled by fear and hate," said Clinton. Clinton: How do we 'allow guns to fall into the hands' of haters?
But then there's this:
Quote: "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun," says Wayne LaPierre, the vice president of the National Rifle Association.
That's become the kernel of the NRA's response to recent US mass shooting tragedies (such as Wednesday's massacre of nine people in a Charleston church) — if only more people carried guns for protection, the thinking goes, then they would be less likely to be victimised by gun-wielding criminals.
The challenge to that argument is that, data shows, guns are rarely used in self-defence in the US — especially relative to the rate at which they're used in criminal homicides or suicides. A recent report from the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group, put those numbers in some perspective, and I dug up the raw numbers from the FBI's homicide data. Take a look:
In 2012, there were 8,855 criminal gun homicides in the FBI's homicide database, but only 258 gun killings by private citizens that were deemed justifiable, which the FBI defines as "the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen."
That works out to one justifiable gun death for every 34 unjustifiable gun deaths.
Or, look at it this way. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows that in 2012 there were 20,666 suicides by gun. That works out to one self-defence killing for every 78 gun suicides. CDC data shows that there were more than twice as many accidental gun fatalities as justifiable killings.
There are, of course, plenty of solid arguments for robust 2nd Amendment protections. Millions of people use guns for sport and recreation every day. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens, not criminals.
But, though some people certainly use guns for self-defence, the data suggests that overall, guns are used far more often for killing then self-defence. As a result, it's may be thinking twice about arguments for more guns in schools, churches and other public places. Charleston shooting: For every criminal killed in self-defence in the US, 34 innocent people die
So in conclusion:
Quote: He has 18 months left to fulfill his "Yes we can" agenda, but President Obama is frustratingly finding that his supporters have already forgotten what he's done and even think he's an "idiot" for not making good on his promise to fix Washington.
In a candid fundraising speech at actor Tyler Perry's Santa Monica, Calif., home Thursday night, the president expressed his own frustration at not scoring more wins in his two terms, but also aired distress at how quickly some of have forgotten his achievements.
"I got a letter a while back from a gentleman living in Colorado, and clearly an intelligent guy, and he had taken a lot of time to write this letter. And he said, you know, I voted for you twice, but I'm feeling disillusioned,'" Obama said.
"And I get letters, people say, 'You are an idiot,' and here's what you didn't do, and here's the program that is terrible, and all kinds of stuff. But this gentleman, he said, I voted for you twice but I'm deeply disappointed. And it went on and on, chronicling all the things that hadn't gotten done," added Obama.
While he didn't detail the writer's frustrations, Obama, who previously noted how the economy has come back, jobs are growing and the future looks brighter, said "he seemed to have forgotten everything that had happened and how he had benefitted."
The president told Democratic donors that writer's angst was probably directed at Washington's division and his inability to unite the parties.
"The core I think of his concern, the core of his complaint was that he thought that when I got to Washington I could bring people together and make them work more effectively," he said. "And on that issue, I had to tell him, you're right. I am frustrated, and you have every right to be frustrated, because Congress doesn't work the way it should."
But not for lack of trying, even though he senses Americans don't think he has.
"Sometimes I feel like people forgot the essence of my pledge when I ran for president. What I promised — I said to people, I said, I am not a perfect man I will not be a perfect president, but I promise you I will wake up every single day and I will go to bed every single night thinking about how to make sure that ordinary Americans have a chance. And I will fight as hard as I can, and I'll be as honest and straightforward as I can about what I believe can open up the doors of opportunity to everybody. That pledge I've kept," said the president.
Frustrations aside, the president said that he still plans big things and revived his call for supporters to stand behind him and help.
"If we keep that faith and fight off cynicism, then 20 years from now, 50 years from now, 100 years from now, people are going to say, okay, they ran the good race and we're further along and America is better and more just, and opportunity is more real for more people," the president concluded. Obama says supporter writes him: 'You're an idiot'
[+]
Cerberus.Laconic
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 235
By Cerberus.Laconic 2015-06-21 01:56:25
Perhaps there's a confusion between the NRA and the NCPA. Almost similar letters, but completely different organizations.
Well in his defense he doesn't know the difference between Austria and Australia. So this comes as no surprise.
Obama says supporter writes him: 'You're an idiot' Clearly, racist.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx
Serveur: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-06-21 01:57:23
Your numbers are from a post on Free Republic, which are sourced from an NRA publication almost verbatim. I linked 4 different sources, all showing the same thing. Ah, never mind then. I see you already have this fully researched.
Leviathan.Chaosx
Serveur: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-06-21 01:58:34
Perhaps there's a confusion between the NRA and the NCPA. Almost similar letters, but completely different organizations.
Well in his defense he doesn't know the difference between Austria and Australia. So this comes as no surprise. He got a mulligan on that one, lol.
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-06-21 01:58:56
Yes, and this is the source of that article.
It's a cut and paste of a propaganda article by a "newspaper" that's funded by the NRA.
Fact Check
Most recent Aus government numbers
Well in his defense he doesn't know the difference between Austria and Australia. So this comes as no surprise.
You posted an article to rebut a discussion about the gun ban in Australia. You're the last person who gets to question others' knowledge.
Cerberus.Laconic
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 235
By Cerberus.Laconic 2015-06-21 02:03:22
Perhaps there's a confusion between the NRA and the NCPA. Almost similar letters, but completely different organizations.
Well in his defense he doesn't know the difference between Austria and Australia. So this comes as no surprise. He got a mulligan on that one, lol.
More like deflecting away from this.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/at-least-two-killed-in-austria-after-man-drives-into-crowd-before-stabbing-passersby-in-graz-10333891.html
Which he accomplish quite well.
Leviathan.Chaosx
Serveur: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-06-21 02:07:37
Cerberus.Laconic
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 235
By Cerberus.Laconic 2015-06-21 02:08:12
You posted an article to rebut a discussion about the gun ban in Australia. You're the last person who gets to question others' knowledge.
That even though they have a massively smaller population than us AND banned guns they still have gun violence? Yup, good job proving me wrong on w/e you think you proved me wrong about. Keep on deflecting!
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-06-21 02:16:28
You posted an article to rebut a discussion about the gun ban in Australia. You're the last person who gets to question others' knowledge.
That even though they have a massively smaller population than us AND banned guns they still have gun violence? Yup, good job proving me wrong on w/e you think you proved me wrong about. Keep on deflecting!
Austria has a violent crime rate of 0.7 per 1,000 people. Our is 5.5
I know a single incident of violent crime not involving a gun gives you a ***, but it is not a trend and doesn't mean crap on a larger scale.
Once again, crime rates are based on a ratio, crimes per x amount of people.
Australia still has guns, by the way, it's just not a right guaranteed by law and the types and ammunition are restricted. Yes, they're going to have gun crime, even if they completely outlawed it, but they have lower violent crime rates, significantly lower violent crime involving guns, significantly lower murder rates with and without guns, significantly lower suicide rates, and no mass shootings.
Speaking of deflecting, care to address the dubious nature of the original article you posted?
Cerberus.Laconic
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 235
By Cerberus.Laconic 2015-06-21 02:32:59
Nothing dubious about it. I'm also well aware Australia still has guns. I'm also aware that Australia, Austria, and America all start with the letter A and the similarities start differing drastically from there.
One thing remains however, guns or not, crazy people going to find a way to kill no matter what. You blame guns, I blame people.
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-06-21 02:39:44
Nothing dubious about it. I'm also well aware Australia still has guns. I'm also aware that Australia, Austria, and America all start with the letter A and the similarities start differing drastically from there.
One thing remains however, guns or not, crazy people going to find a way to kill no matter what. You blame guns, I blame people.
I am not blaming guns for anything, can you find a place where I blamed guns? However, mass shootings don't take place without them. There is a causal relationship between access to guns and number of mass shootings.
You want to own guns, that's fine, I own them too. But, just because you want something doesn't change the nature of reality, and grabbing all the propaganda you can find to support what you want is a pathetic way to justify something. If you want to own guns, just say that, and skip the ridiculous tapdance.
Leviathan.Chaosx
Serveur: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-06-21 03:38:54
There is a causal relationship between access to guns and number of mass shootings. There is also a casual relationship between drowning and water.
By fonewear 2015-06-21 07:37:22
There is a causal relationship between access to guns and number of mass shootings. There is also a casual relationship between drowning and water.
If a gun could he would kill you and your entire family !
By fonewear 2015-06-21 09:02:13
Since it is father's day I thought I'd check out what the women of the world are thinking:
TLDR: I guess you can't tell a girl she has "daddy issues"
Source: jezebel.com
Until recently, I’d never been on the website AskMen.com, I suppose largely because I never had the occasion to ask a man anything. The site’s tagline touts that it is a place where men can become better men, though on my first visit I’m already suspicious that any of my questions will be answered or that I will become a better man.
I’m hoping that the site will help me find answers to my questions about our modern understanding of “daddy issues,” but I learn within moments that AskMen.com is the kind of men’s rights-enthusiast-run site full of chum content that sits and waits until a dude without a brain needs to know how to bring his girlfriend to the Big O as he masturbates near an open laptop. That’s okay, though, because I’m still learning something. I’m learning what a pick-up-artist-type guy thinks of when we talk about a woman having daddy issues. AskMen.com is still an important resource, i.e. the second result when you google the term “daddy issues.”
“Are her daddy issues to blame?” asks the post I land on. In it, the author describes the symptoms of diagnosable daddy issues, which your girlfriend or hookup partner may be suffering from, adding that he plans to advise you on how best to “handle” them if you are tasked with the daunting, unfortunate task of reversing years of neglect and mistreatment from a woman’s father.
Sexual aggressiveness is listed as a the first symptom of daddy issues, excessive flirting the second, and clinginess the last, all of these comprising the holy triumvirate of characteristics you do not want to see yourself dealing with in a girlfriend. If you end up with a woman who exhibits any one of the these behaviors, you do your best to curb them, as with a dog:
Every woman wants care and assurance from her partner and, of course, girlfriends want to spend quality time with their boyfriends. But a girl with daddy issues wants those things in excess. She may throw a fit whenever you make plans without her. She might beg and bargain whenever you try to leave her apartment. It’s important to keep her daddy issues in check by establishing strict boundaries. Stick to your guns and maintain a separate social life. If you give in to a bout of clinginess once, you’re sunk forever.
Sunk forever, broham, is not where you’d like to be.
As I’d expected from even my first seconds on AskMen.com, this was grade-F male-advice “locker room” pandering, the kind that seems almost too perfect to be true or available for the casual reader of the web. Because of its home, there was no reason for me to be taking any of this seriously or thinking of it as a representative of what most rational people would conjure up when the term “daddy issues” arose.
But for reasons beyond myself—I found the page threatening. If this was the second result when googling “daddy issues,” then there was one of two things going on: either the idea of “daddy issues” had been downgraded to low priority in our modern vernacular or this was our best resource on an outdated, monstrous, and completely wrongheaded idea.
And of course, the first result when googling “daddy issues” is Urban Dictionary. Here’s a little screenshot of what that page looks like:
***. ***. Cougar. Sugar daddy. Attention ***. ***. Usually to the chagrin of any poor male in their life.
While it goes without saying that AskMen.com and Urban Dictionary are the last resources anyone should use to determine historical integrity or background on any term, they do serve a significant purpose in understanding popular culture, which affects even the people who think they know better. In an informal poll of the Gawker.com staff, the term daddy issues was batted around to mean several related things: it could mean that a person sought attention sexually or that a person was eager to please their partner or that a person was often jealous or angry or mercurial or spastic in relationships. This person was almost always a woman.
None of this is particularly surprising, even as I thought about my own understanding of daddy issues. The term “daddy issues” has been so ingrained as to become commonplace, almost forgotten—one of those colloquialisms that no longer seems significant or relevant. It can be brushed aside and dismissed almost as a joke, a Lana Del Rey song so obvious that it’s surprising. But the connotation is still singular. Unlike a man who’s a “mama’s boy,” a woman with “daddy issues” has nothing soft or pleasant circling the problem. If you have daddy issues, you are certainly, without question, *** up. Don’t ask me—ask men:
If her dad failed to show her love and affection, she might grow up expecting the worst from men. If you find her blowing up over minor screw-ups, it might be because your mistake reminds her of her father’s poor parenting.
The term “daddy issues” originates from Carl Jung’s theory of the Electra complex, a counteracting theory to the Oedipus complex that suggests women want to compete with their mothers in possession of their fathers. It’s cropped up again and again in pop culture, most notably in Sylvia Plath’s poem “Daddy,” where the author claims to be through with her issues surrounding her father after killing them at the conclusion of the poem.
“Daddy issues” may not be the hottest term in psychobabble right now, as women are encouraged to Lean In and take responsibility for themselves despite what their fathers have wrought, but something about how normalized the term is is troubling. When it appears that we’ve let this concept slide relatively unnoticed through our cultural dialect, is there ever a way to correct and reverse that harmful language—or is it like this forever? When “she might grow up expecting the worst from men” is written down as symptom of a problem women suffer, who exactly is to blame?
Let me back up a bit. I’ve been thinking a lot about daddy issues because, well, like lots of women, I was wondering if I had them. I was roped in by this patriarchal narrative, so subtle it haunted me like a ghost. It’s incredible the paranoia that women live with every day—Do I act this way? Am I crazy? What is crazy anyway? Who is responsible for the way I am? Is the way I am right or wrong? Should I be this way or that? Did I do the right “womanly” thing today? Was the “womanly” thing the way the men wanted me to act or the way the women wanted me to act? Was I true to myself and was that enough? Who am I at all?
Am I a good woman? Do I have daddy issues?
So I went to Scotland at the end of last year to see my estranged father, who—to put it plainly—is an alcoholic narcissist who has lived his life spitefully resenting every decision he’s ever made.
I went under the auspices of a reconciliation tour, as we have not had a relationship for most of my life. The long, complicated mess of this relationship is not condensable to one essay, but I flash back frequently to being on the phone with him when I was 11 years old, begging him on behalf of my mother to pay child support, because we were a struggling single-parent home and my mother was stretched thin. He plied me with excuses and was condescending and cruel, spitting out drunken curses. He made me feel responsible for our lack of connection, which was mostly predicated on the fact that he only loves two things: to drink and watch sports, and throughout our short relationship, I was a young girl who did not.
Even then I knew he treated me differently than he did my brother. I theorized eventually that I reminded him of a precocious version of my mother, whom he resented, whom I looked up to and still do. He had no clue what to do with a woman, let alone how to parent one. I was 13 years old the last time I spent any real time with him; that experience ended with me requesting of my mother that I never have to see him again.
But as an adult, I convinced myself that perhaps I’d been biased. I wanted desperately to see what I’d missed out on all these years of feeling ruthlessly unforgiving toward him. My eventual decision to visit Scotland to see him was to seek answers about whether or not my bias against him was based in fact.
Then, when I saw him in Scotland, a lot of feelings about our lack of connection came back to me—most of which had prevented me from trying to reach out to him in the first place. He was a bitter old man who had hate in his heart. He treated me with disdain, choosing to bury his face in drink rather than have conversations with me. When we would talk, he would tell me stories of bringing women back to his hotel rooms when he visited me in America, or get into arguments with me about my mother and her apparent transgressions, calmly explaining that I had been an impossible daughter. During one particular heated moment at a pub, during which he was drinking and I was not, he said very plainly—on the brink of inebriated tears—“I wish I’d had different kids.”
I was 27 on this trip. This was a telling age: the age when a lot of female acquaintances of mine were warming up to men, forming long-term relationships, getting married, finding love and happiness in significant others. I, on the other hand, was not only not doing that, I was finding commitment difficult. I was not ready for long-term relationships. I could not find a boyfriend that I liked. I did not want to be with anyone for very long. I did not find men tolerable, interesting, or worthwhile. It took me a long time to trust any man, let alone imagine myself committing to them for a lifetime, and the thought of having a child (a CHILD!) with one of them felt scarier than jumping off a bridge. I had, some might say, the opposite of daddy issues. I thought that perhaps in seeking some closure or stability in my relationship with my dad, I’d be able to solve my problems in relationships. I believed I’d cure my daddy issues by making up with my daddy.
But I found something else entirely in Scotland, something even more freeing than giving my dad the permission to “cure” me of my “daddy issues.” Instead, in our fights and our inability to connect, I was able to put those feelings back on him. The narrative I’d been told my whole life—that because I’d been neglected and mistreated by my horrorshow of a father, I would suffer forever from daddy issues—was actually a complete lie. The person who suffered from daddy issues wasn’t me. I was actually quite together. I had a friendships, goals, a career. I had a full heart, I was eager to give, I was trusting.
By simple principle of the fact that my dad could not handle being a dad, he was the one who had daddy issues, not me. I just happened to be raised in his crossfire.
Our understanding of “daddy issues” has been defined and controlled by what men think are women’s failings. But it’s the ways in which men have failed that have made things this way. It’s on women now to define and understand our suffering, so here’s a try. Daddy issues: the issue of men finding it easy to throw away the responsibility of fatherhood, the issue of all of us excusing them. We locate the problem of abandonment in the abandoned. Turn that around, and then we can talk.
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-06-21 09:44:37
There is a causal relationship between access to guns and number of mass shootings. There is also a casual relationship between drowning and water.
That's kinda the point. The places that have far fewer guns don't generally have higher crime rates and they do not have mass shootings. If nothing else changed by limited access to guns than mass shootings stopped, it would be a net gain.
Cerberus.Laconic
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 235
By Cerberus.Laconic 2015-06-21 12:39:23
For someone who doesn't blame guns, you sure sound like someone who blames guns.
However, mass shootings don't take place without them.
If nothing else changed by limited access to guns than mass shootings stopped, it would be a net gain.
Accessibility to guns definitely plays a part in that difference.
By fonewear 2015-06-21 12:44:12
I have access to a lot of knives those are deadly weapons also !
Cerberus.Laconic
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 235
By Cerberus.Laconic 2015-06-21 12:51:32
I have access to a lot of knives those are deadly weapons also !
Just don't get in a car with them.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-06-21 12:57:34
I have access to a lot of knives those are deadly weapons also !
Just don't get in a car with them.
Nah, in Fone's case it's not so bad. He has plenty of room in his van.
[+]
By fonewear 2015-06-21 13:28:56
Nothing wrong with free candy !
[+]
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-06-21 13:40:41
Get rid of all guns in the world, gun violence ceases, but non-gun violence skyrockets.
Because people are very creative in how to kill one another....
[+]
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-06-21 16:12:03
For someone who doesn't blame guns, you sure sound like someone who blames guns.
However, mass shootings don't take place without them.
If nothing else changed by limited access to guns than mass shootings stopped, it would be a net gain.
Accessibility to guns definitely plays a part in that difference.
Do I need to get you the definition of blame? People kill people, but access to guns makes it much easier and results in more deaths. The simple fact is that disturbed and angry people aren't able to commit mass shootings without guns and places where guns are less available have fewer or no mass shootings.
If you're adamant that guns should be as easy to get as a pack of gum, how do you intend to keep people from obtaining them for the purpose of killing dozens of innocent people? Or do you think mass shootings are just fine and you don't care?
[+]
Random Politics & Religion is for topics that aren't thread worthy on their own and do not have their own existing thread.
Rules and Guidelines
Forum Rules and P&R Section Guidelines still apply.
Satire is tolerated.
If your topic covers a story over 6 months old (Watergate, Benghazi, 2012 Election, etc.) post it here.
Discussions on racism, homophobia, transphobia, and the like are allowed, targeted insults based on these will not be tolerated.
Political debates get heated and are meant to be intense, if you take offense to being called or proven wrong, you don't belong here.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen; if you prove you can't handle the criticism you bring upon yourself in this thread, you may be removed from it. You are responsible for what you post.
Along those lines, heat is fine, but sustained, clearly personal hostility is not okay. The personal attack rules still apply. Attack positions, not posters. Failure to adhere to this will result in your removal from the thread.
This thread is NOT the Flame Core.
These rules are subject to change and modification where and when needed.
Random Politics & Religion may be mained or demained depending on the activity within at a Moderator's discretion.
With that out of the way, let the debates begin!
/bow
|
|