1. So, basically they are admitting it is not the tool, it is the person. Extrapolating, because some people cannot be trusted with firearms I should not be as well. Did they just just explicitly state they are for collective punishment?

   1. Did they just just explicitly state they are for collective punishment?

      It has been their long-standing belief that mass incarcerations without due process are OK because they can be redressed later.

      1. Well of course we know that, they are all for totalitarian control, including collective punishment and reeducation. And if the courts decree that you were not in need of “ultimate reeducation” at some later date they will just just give your surviving relatives a little cash to make up for it, while saying they did nothing wrong.

         It just amazes me that they will say these things in public, without knowing what they are really saying. They think it is a cute and irrefutable argument, and how could any sensible person disagree, but they cannot follow the argument back to the base premise to find out why we reject the concept in its entirety.

         The above illustration is a tacit admission that they fully support collective punishment and all that it entails, but they have never thought about it deep enough to make that connection. Their argument is based on shallow slogans and emotion, and they think it is irrefutable logic. Meanwhile I saw it and made the connection in about as much time as it took me to process the image:

         Some people cannot be trusted to control their anger; those people should not have guns; we cannot tell who cannot control their anger > therefor no one should have guns.

         It is about as textbook an example of collective punishment as you can get.

         You know this, and I know this, but it still surprises me to see how dumb they are.

Comments are closed.