Yeah, it's a copy of that.

fairly.unbalanced
report this user
Nov 3 fairly.unbalanced commented on Guest Editorial: I Lost My 6-Year-Old Son at Sandy Hook. Do Something About Gun Violence by Voting "YES" on Initiative 594..
@41
"my god you're a dick. i hope i never meet you."

Like I said, they keep bringing out unrelated incidents.
Why can't they find just a few people who have lost family members because of unlicensed sales?

Are you okay with people advocating against gay rights because of pedophiles?
Nov 2 fairly.unbalanced commented on Guest Editorial: I Lost My 6-Year-Old Son at Sandy Hook. Do Something About Gun Violence by Voting "YES" on Initiative 594..
@21
"no one is claiming background checks would have stopped Sandy Hook. so. goddam. obtuse."

You did not read the article, did you?

"i think 594 needs to find someone who was shot, or lost a loved one to, a felon who purchased a gun through the gun show loophole, specifically, to overcome your compulsive niggling."

Instead they keep bringing out unrelated incidents.
Why can't they find just a few people who have lost family members because of unlicensed sales?

Are you okay with people advocating against gay rights because of pedophiles?
Nov 2 fairly.unbalanced commented on Guest Editorial: I Lost My 6-Year-Old Son at Sandy Hook. Do Something About Gun Violence by Voting "YES" on Initiative 594..
@15
"Conflating them is emotional manipulation."

Yes.
Adam Lanza did not purchase the guns without a background check.
So requiring a background check would have done nothing to stop the shooting at Sandy Hook.

This is about putting up more hurdles for law-abiding citizens to overcome before they are allowed to legally purchase a gun.
Oct 16 fairly.unbalanced commented on Why We're Voting "YES" on Gun Control Initiative 594, and Why You Should Too.
@65
"There really is no point arguing about gun laws here. I'm coming to realize that."

This is not about convincing anyone who has already chosen their position here. Those people are posting to be publicly seen as being on the "good" side. Whether they understand what the SCOTUS has ruled on regarding the 2nd Amendment or not.

"The thing about many of my fellow liberals is they love useless feel-good bullshit legislation when it comes to guns, and many other things."

It is only "useless" in the context of addressing the points that they keep repeating to justify it. Such as "Remember the horror of the Seattle Pacific University shooting? Remember Sandy Hook? Remember shootings at the University of Santa Barbara? Remember Columbine?" This legislation would not have done anything in those cases.

The real goal is to add more hoops in the hope that it will
a. make the process of legally getting a gun too difficult or time consuming for law-abiding citizens.
b. make people who are law-abiding citizens today into criminals tomorrow so that they cannot own a gun.
More...
Oct 7 fairly.unbalanced commented on I-594 Campaign Says Background Check Loophole Failed Woman Killed by Domestic Abuser.
@25
Which is the problem that keeps popping up with this issue. Where are all the prosecutions?
Sep 3 fairly.unbalanced commented on Those Leaked Celebrity Nudes: Have You Looked?.
Haven't looked.
Not going to look.
You either respect their privacy or you do not.
Sep 1 fairly.unbalanced commented on Anita Sarkeesian Threatened with Rape and Murder for Daring to Keep Critiquing Video Games.
@152
"One of these things is rude and inappropriate."

You are defending it as an appropriate response.
The same type of people who tell Anita Sarkeesian to kill herself for posting her opinions are the same type of people who post "kill yourself" here.
And you believe that that is acceptable.

If Anna is interested in knowing what type of people those are then she only has to look in this thread.
Aug 31 fairly.unbalanced commented on Anita Sarkeesian Threatened with Rape and Murder for Daring to Keep Critiquing Video Games.
@145
Either you believe that posting "kill yourself" is an appropriate response when disagreeing with someone or you do not.
You do.
Therefore, you are defending the behavior of the people who tell Anita Sarkeesian to kill herself because they do not agree with her posting her views on games and misogyny.

So if Anna wants to know what type of person does that, she can just look at this thread.
Aug 30 fairly.unbalanced commented on Anita Sarkeesian Threatened with Rape and Murder for Daring to Keep Critiquing Video Games.
@137
"Well do you feel threatened or not? If you do then you should report them. If you don't then don't."

I will explain it to you again.
There is a type of person who believes that it is appropriate to post "kill yourself" on Anita Sarkeesian's site because they disagree with her posting her opinions.
You are that type of person.
As are the other people here who have defended that behavior.

If Anna wants to know what kind of person would post that on Anita Sarkeesian's site then Anna only needs to look at the comments in this thread.
Aug 29 fairly.unbalanced commented on Anita Sarkeesian Threatened with Rape and Murder for Daring to Keep Critiquing Video Games.
@135
"Well are you going to report them or not?"

As I said before, you will not be able to post any links to where you are "calling out" anyone for posting "kill yourself" prior to my Anita Sarkeesian reference.
That is because you believe that it is an acceptable response to someone posting an opinion that you disagree with.

When Anita Sarkeesian posts a video about her opinion of of misogyny in games and someone tells her to kill herself for that, you would defend that response.
Because you know that they did not really mean it.
It's just something that people post.
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy