Certainly aware and support their decision to have a means of protecting themselves and their loved ones. However, that is totally irrelevant to the idea that is being discussed here.
I support your decision to rename yourself, "NoCaresBozo". Seems fitting.
Or, maybe you meant to write, "nobody cares, bozo". But you're such an edgy nihilist that you simply don't care if what you say is properly understood? But if that was the case, wouldn't it be more logical for you to just not say anything to begin with? Or is the simplicity of that reasoning just too much to ask from you?
Do you often lack the capacity to analyze a simple conversation? If the only thoughts you are capable of explaining are calling people names and telling people that you don't care because you disagree with their position, I doubt you should be anywhere near an entertainment medium and more focused on furthering your own education. Best of luck to you, my friend.
The article uses biased language when describing certain individuals and groups, such as referring to John Lott as a "pro-gun advocate" and Daniel Webster as someone who "disagreed with Lott's findings." This kind of language can influence readers' perceptions and is not conducive to an objective analysis.
The article presents opposing views but fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of the counterarguments. It briefly mentions that anti-gun advocates see different patterns in the statistical evidence, but it does not explore these alternative perspectives in depth or provide specific examples or studies that contradict Lott's findings.
The article heavily relies on the viewpoints of Daniel Webster and Louis Klarevas to challenge Lott's research. While it is valid to include different perspectives, the selective use of sources can create a skewed representation of the available evidence.
The article portrays Lott's research as flawed without providing substantial evidence to support this claim. It mentions that academics have criticized his work, but it does not delve into specific critiques or present a balanced assessment of the academic debates surrounding Lott's findings.
The article dismisses Lott's characterization of certain locations as gun-free zones because armed security personnel are present. However, it fails to address Lott's argument that shooters may target areas where civilians are not armed, regardless of the presence of armed guards or police officers. This oversight undermines the comprehensive evaluation of the issue.
The article briefly mentions that some academics have criticized Lott's methodology, but it does not provide a detailed analysis or explanation of these criticisms. Without a thorough examination of Lott's methods, readers are left without the necessary information to assess the validity and reliability of his research.
The article concludes that it is difficult to draw broad conclusions about the motivations of perpetrators of mass shootings or their relationship with gun restrictions. While this statement may be true to some extent, the article fails to provide a clear analysis of the available evidence and expert opinions. It leaves readers without a strong understanding of the topic.
The scope of the study is off topic as it discusses the size of a police force relative to the amount of crimes within an area. The proposed argument isn't about the size of police forces, it is about putting existing police in places which we deem important places worth protecting, such as the buildings in which our children congregate on a daily basis.
If you had half a brain, you would notice that tons of government buildings have armed security forces and they are rarely ever the target of mass shootings.
The article does not provide any context or summary of the research it is discussing. It jumps straight into discussing the findings without explaining the methodology or the scope of the study.
The article does not provide any in-text citations or references to support its claims. It mentions the number of studies analyzed and the conclusions drawn from them but does not provide specific examples or evidence from the research itself.
The article presents a binary view of the findings, stating that there is no consensus among the studies and that police agency size has no impact on crime. However, it fails to acknowledge the nuances and variations within the studies analyzed. It also does not discuss potential factors that may influence the relationship between police agency size and crime.
The article focuses solely on the impact of police agency size on crime and does not consider other important outcomes, such as officer health and safety or public perception of the police. This narrow focus limits the comprehensiveness of the analysis.
The article presents its conclusions as definitive and dismisses any other interpretations as contradicting theory, evidence, and common sense. However, it fails to address potential counterarguments or alternative perspectives, which weakens the overall credibility of the article.
The right is emotional and wants to manipulate you with flawed conclusions based on their feelings.
Hilarious to say such a thing when you are clearly letting your emotions control your opinions while putting faith in bunk "science". A true leftist, "trust the science, bro. no matter how misleading and inconclusive it it"...
Fortunately for me, I'm not the one who is pretending to be a
fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
Or, a criminologist, crime analyst, and criminal justice researcher...
Scientists should strive to adhere to the principles of objectivity and impartiality in their research and analysis. The scientific method is designed to minimize bias and subjectivity in order to obtain reliable and valid results.
You sound like you are helping prove my point. Children need to be protected. So it makes no sense to prevent the placement of police outside of schools.
The unfortunate truth is that you likely don't see it that way and will instead try to coerce people to give up their guns.
Both what I've said and what was said in the video is about democrats, not libs, per se. While the terms are often used interchangeably, they certainly represent different ideologies... Even more so if we're talking about "classical liberals" compared to the "modern libs", but that's besides the point.
Democrats unanimously voted against bills calling for police officers at schools. That is what this video is about. Not necessarily about democrats, or libs, being "gun grabbers", and certainly not about using an AK as your concealed carry.
Law enforcement agencies in the United States have, on multiple occasions, successfully intervened to stop potential and active school shooters. Interventions vary in terms of effectiveness.
gun regulation is the obvious solution
Do you not find it dumbfounding? How can we have so many existing firearm regulations and still have evil people? It's quite perplexing, isn't it?
It's almost as if, the guns aren't the problem to begin with, and instead, people’s culture and mental health are to blame. Imagine that. People kill people, with or without access to firearms... Amazing!
Now that we've covered some obvious nuggets of truth, we get to dive into why the articles you've put your faith in are BS pseudoscience. Enjoy.
...begins with the personal experience of Cameo Kendrick, using her feelings and experiences to support the argument against SROs. While personal anecdotes can be powerful, they are not sufficient evidence to draw broad conclusions.
...is manipulative, heavily relying on emotional language and appeals to fear and racial injustice to shape the narrative.
...mentions statistics about the increase in the number of SROs in schools but fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of the data.
...implies a causal relationship between the presence of SROs and negative outcomes such as higher rates of behavioral incidents, suspensions, expulsions, and arrests. However, it fails to consider other factors that could contribute to these outcomes.
...highlights statistics that support its argument, such as the disproportionate arrest rates of Black students. Does not provide a complete picture of the overall effectiveness or impact of SROs.
...makes sweeping generalizations about the impact of SROs based on limited research and isolated incidents. It fails to acknowledge that the effectiveness and outcomes of SRO programs can vary significantly across different schools and communities.
...does not present any opposing viewpoints or address potential benefits of having SROs in schools. This one-sided presentation undermines the credibility and objectivity of the argument.
...asserts that several school districts have already moved to stop the practice of employing SROs, but it does not provide any specific examples or evidence to support this claim.
...opens with a strong emotional appeal by linking the presence of police in schools to historical injustices such as slave patrols and forced dislocation of indigenous youth. It is crucial to evaluate the current situation based on evidence and data rather than relying solely on emotional appeals.
...cites a few instances where school districts eliminated or made progress towards eliminating school police, implying that this is a widespread trend across California. However, without providing a comprehensive analysis of the situation in all California schools, it becomes a cherry-picked example.
...suggests a correlation between the presence of police in schools and higher rates of arrests. Other factors such as the demographics of the student population, socioeconomic conditions, and crime rates in the surrounding community could also contribute to the observed disparities.
...dismisses the argument that schools with assigned law enforcement officers may be inherently more dangerous, using the example of Baldwin Park Unified School District. While this example is presented as evidence against the argument, it does not consider other potential explanations for the increase in law enforcement referrals.
...selectively highlights data points that support its argument, focusing on the disproportionate arrest and referral rates for specific student groups. While these disparities may indeed exist, it is important to consider a broader range of data and factors to get a comprehensive understanding of the situation. Ignoring or downplaying relevant data can lead to a biased and incomplete analysis.
...does not address any potential benefits or positive aspects of having police in schools. It fails to acknowledge arguments that advocate for the presence of law enforcement as a means to ensure safety, prevent violence, or address potential threats within school environments. By omitting counterarguments, the article presents a one-sided view of the issue.
...recommends the removal of police from schools, it does not provide concrete alternatives or strategies to ensure the safety and well-being of students in the absence of law enforcement. Simply advocating for the removal of police without proposing viable alternatives undermines the goal of creating safe and supportive learning environments.
trust the science, bro. no matter how misleading and inconclusive it it...
False dichotomy: The article presents the argument as a binary choice between armed law enforcement on campus and restricting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. This oversimplifies the issue and ignores other potential solutions or approaches to school safety.
Cherry-picked evidence: The article selectively presents examples and studies that support the argument against armed law enforcement on campuses while downplaying or omitting evidence that may contradict it. This creates a biased view of the topic.
Anecdotal evidence: The article relies on specific incidents, such as the Uvalde and Santa Fe shootings, to argue against the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in preventing school shootings. While these incidents are important to consider, they alone do not provide a comprehensive assessment of the issue.
Appeal to authority: The article quotes experts and studies to support its claims, presenting them as the definitive authority on the matter. However, there are conflicting studies and opinions on the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in schools, and relying solely on one set of experts or studies is misleading.
Hasty generalization: The article generalizes from specific cases or limited studies to make broad conclusions about the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in preventing school shootings. This ignores the complexities and variations in different school environments and security measures.
Ad hominem attack: The article includes a statement from Sen. Ted Cruz blaming others for politicizing the Uvalde shooting, implying that his argument for armed law enforcement is driven by political motivations rather than genuine concern for school safety. This attacks the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself.
Lack of counterarguments: The article does not present counterarguments or alternative perspectives to the claim that armed law enforcement is an effective tool for keeping kids safe in schools. This one-sided presentation of the issue limits a comprehensive understanding of the topic.
Overgeneralization of research findings: The article cites specific studies to argue against the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in schools. However, it fails to acknowledge the limitations of these studies and extrapolates their findings to make sweeping claims about the overall impact of armed officers in preventing school shootings.
It's important to critically evaluate the information presented in the article and consider a range of perspectives and evidence before drawing conclusions on the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in preventing school shootings.
[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]
The spreading of ideas and differing perspectives through provoking conversation isn't "hateful bullshit" just because you and the echo chamber which you might align with disagree with it. Noting I've said, nor what was said in the video, is "hateful". Why are you often trying to control how other people speak and think?
It’s not a genocide, that’s not how genocide works
Sterilization is quite commonly associated with genocide. If you support it because it's voluntary. More power to you, I guess? I don't support the sterilization of anyone, but if it's voluntary, I guess that makes it acceptable in some people's eyes? Noted.
the idea that they can’t feel sexual pleasure is just categorically untrue
Yes, I agree that this idea is a stretch, unfortunately it was included in an otherwise thought provoking video.
Shapiro is known for his fast-paced and articulate speaking style. He possesses a strong command of language, which enables him to present his arguments clearly and succinctly.
Shapiro is well-versed in a wide range of topics, including politics, economics, philosophy, and social issues. He often extensively prepares for debates by researching the subject matter, gathering relevant data, and constructing persuasive arguments.
Shapiro is known for his confident and assertive demeanor during debates. He is not afraid to challenge opposing views and presenting his own perspective.
Shapiro actively seeks out debate opportunities and is open to engaging with individuals who hold opposing views. His willingness to participate in discussions and defend his ideas contributes to his reputation as a debater.
You'd be more accurate if you stated that you have trouble following Shaprio's debate style as it is quite clear that many people recognize him as a well spoken and worthy debate opponent. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, that opinion is not commonly recognized, as many people seek debates with him.
Clearly, in an echo chamber of leftys and libs, my opinion on Shapiro's debate style will not be recognized as the general consensus. However, it's best to keep a perspective that is open minded when listening to opinions with which you might disagree, instead of just attempting to nullify everything that is said simply because you dislike a particular person.
Black Lives Matter, too. Who could be against this?
All lives should be treated as equals. "Social equity" is not equality. Since when is charity dignifying for the recipient?
Ben Shapiro has terrible opinions about minorities and the LGBT
Shapiro has stated multiple times that he would rather a child have two gay parents over being an orphan. I won't deny that some of his takes are a bit on the theocratic side. But he isn't theocratic, he recognizes that while his religious beliefs do influence his perspectives, not everyone should be coerced to live the way which he chooses to live.
He is not a good person
Clearly, in an echo chamber of leftys and libs, my opinion on Shapiro will not be recognized as the general consensus. However, it's best to keep a perspective that is open minded when listening to opinions with which you might disagree, instead of just attempting to nullify everything that is said simply because you dislike a particular person.
And he is not quick witted.
It is quite clear that many people recognize him as a well spoken and worthy debate opponent. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, that opinion is not commonly recognized, as many people seek debates with him.
Sorry. This is the world we live in. I too would like to know the way back to a place where people can easily define the differences between a man and a woman.
Yes and I trust in your ability to use online search engines too instead of ignoring what has been brought to your attention. If you refuse to see what is obvious to others, it does not make it untrue.
I hope God has blessed you in some other important way. Best wishes.
I read the news articles, from various sources. I trust you can not only find the same articles, but do your own due diligence. It's quite sad that this simple task is seemingly so difficult for you lot.
6 examples of a trans person also being a sex pest doesn’t mean that all of them are
I agree.
But there are plenty more than the 6 covered in this video... Not regarding assaults, but regarding general sexual behavior towards minors, see public nudity at pride parades, "drag shows for kids", kids themselves featured in drag shows, etc. Bizarro world, indeed...
certainly doesn’t mean that granting legal protection and freedom to transgender people causes women to get assaulted/harassed by them.
I don't believe anyone implied that. The video implied that allowing trans people into whichever bathroom they choose to enter was considered "safe" but this doesn't constitute "legal protection and freedoms".
Trans people, in the US, have just as many "legal protections and freedoms" as any other normal person. The aspect of this discussion where the matter at hand becomes controversial is that you might think men pretending to be women should be allowed into legally protected spaces that are specifically for women, whereas anyone with a moral compass would see that this ideology is fundamentally flawed.
I don't want you to think that I am not empathetic to the complexity of the situation. I think it is very important to consider our options moving forward... I've asked this question a few times in other discussions but I'm always willing to hear a fresh take on it.
Men and women are segregated for specific reasons regarding bathrooms and locker rooms. So when we have a group of people which can freely transverse these spaces, there is reasonable concern. What needs to happen to ensure that all persons are free and comfortable in their public spaces? Should we be erecting new public facilities that cater specifically to trans people? Do we need separate spaces for both trans men and trans women? Similarly, should we also make spaces for gay persons?
Instead of seeking to lose a debate through name-calling, I encourage you to focus on constructive techniques that can foster a healthy discussion and lead to personal growth and learning.
It's called satire... If you cannot comprehend the joke, I hope God has blessed you in some other important way. Have a great day!
If someone proposes an argument and another person tries to counter the proposed argument with the goal being to critically analyze the topic and challenge a position, the conversation becomes a "debate". Regardless of if the setting is formal or not. If you'd prefer to not call the conversation a debate, that's fine, Libs are well known for trying to redefine words to fit their narrative and the definition of debate itself varies depending on which source you query...
Since this isn't a formal debate and you were clear that you didn't think it's a debate at all, why then would you imply that the conversation must have a winner or a loser? Seems contradictory. I certainly didn't tell you that I won because I pointed out something that was seemingly obvious to everyone, besides yourself.
You seem generally confused as you lack the capacity to analyze a simple conversation. If the only thoughts you are capable of explaining are calling people names because you disagree with their position, I doubt you should be anywhere near an entertainment medium and more focused on furthering your education. Maybe then you might be able to comprehend the joke and attack it's position and validity.
I truly hope you have a brighter future ahead of you. Best wishes.
SCOTUS disagrees and I am so pleased that years of blatant racism is being reversed regarding college admissions. Cannot wait to see what's next!
Many people are saying that my position is wrong, but nobody has yet to try and explain why they think so. Instead we have "bait-and-switched," "reverse-racism," "microaggressions", "bad faith actors," "bird-brained simpleton," etc... It's both hilarious and sad that none of you can provide reinforcement for your positions.
Here's mine: Racism is discrimination by an institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group. Literally affirmative action and college admissions. But the libs and leftys will deny this to the death without ever trying to back it up. Why is that?
The subject being promoted here is not rational, the consequences are not beneficial to society at large, and this person only wants to cling to civility when it benefits him to do so, in order to appear to be a sympathetic victim in comparison to the other person in the dialogue.
I couldn't care less how many names the members of m/politics call me. It's honestly hilarious how fresh this site is yet how much of an echo chamber it has already become. If you want to be m/lib-scum or m/donkey-politics... I'd totally get that, I wouldn't support it, but I'd recognize that at least you tried. Instead, you're m/politics, so you should surely expect that both sides of current arguments would be present. I was surprised that this assumption was false.
So, you get what ask for.
On another note, I'm not attempting to "appear as a victim," we have enough leftys and libs doing that on a daily basis, I certainly wouldn't want to come off as soft headed or cowardice as that lot. I'm simply calling out the bullshit as I see it. I'm certainly not claiming I'm innocent of bullshitting and name calling.
Was I wrong? Why not instead of just spewing malarkey you try and bolster your position on the matter? Instead we get "mickey mouse attempt," "reverse racism," and "full blown trite"... How is any of that useful to the discussion at hand? It isn't. If you want to be taken seriously, redeem yourself and give it a go.
Nothing I say can make you see people of color as worth dignity, so I don't care to expend the energy to try to convince you.
Now you're implying that I'm racist while I'm clearly advocating for anti-racist policies... It's certainly true that the leftys don't get much smarter than this prime example.
Since when is charity dignifying for the recipient?
I appreciate what little insight you've provided and I hope you are more open to meaningful conversations in the future. Best wishes to you, my friend.
I love how everybody throws around comparisons to fascism and Nazis these days. We could focus on the left or the right and easily create a list of all the things we've done that was similar to things Nazis did. It really isn't hard to do...
During World War II, Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which led to the forced relocation and internment of around 120,000 Japanese Americans.
Under the Democratic administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, the FBI's Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) targeted various political groups, including civil rights activists, anti-war organizations, and socialist and communist groups.
The Democratic administration of President Woodrow Wilson used the Espionage Act of 1917 to suppress dissent during World War I. The act was employed to prosecute individuals who criticized the war effort, including socialists, pacifists, and anarchists.
Democrat Bill Clinton invoked executive privilege to withhold information in various investigations, including the Whitewater controversy and the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Democratic President Barack Obama faced criticism for the use of drone strikes and the extensive use of executive orders.
The Democratic administration of President Barack Obama faced criticism for its continuation and expansion of surveillance programs, such as the National Security Agency's mass surveillance programs revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
We could talk about how Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, continued and expanded the "War on Drugs" policies. Which disproportionately affected minority communities and led to mass incarceration, raising concerns about civil liberties and racial inequality...
Good old "Drug War Joe".
We could discuss how countless groups of college libs attack people who they aren't intelligent enough to have a conversation with. Or how the libs are trying to coerce speech through legislation with their fantasies concerning deadnaming and misgendering.
Or you know, we could accept the facts that both sides are similarly as evil as the other. Instead of just pointing fingers and acting like children.
Restrictions on education about sexual orientation and gender identity, a ban on gender-affirming care, an anti-trans bathroom bill, and measures that limit academic freedom and allow healthcare providers to discriminate based on religious beliefs.
Or, for the people who don't follow the religion of LGBTism... Laws concerning a reality check. "Gender affirming care" is mislabeled, should be "gender denial". Bathrooms are segregated based on sex to protect women from sick or aggressive men.
These are all great things, these people need mental help, and being their "yes men" or playing into their fantasy is not the help they need.
[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]
[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]
Watch BLM get outwitted by Ben Shapiro. How soon until the libs start going after ethnocentrism? ( youtu.be )
Why are libs endangering women and denying their right to privacy? ( youtu.be )
At what point does blatant racism become acceptable and encouraged? ( youtu.be )
Journalist John Stossel perfectly illustrates why affirmative action is actually racist.
The cringiest presidential campaign ad video you will ever see, courtesy of Ron DeSantis ( twitter.com )
Few days old so you may have already seen it but what the fuck is this lmfao
Dearest developers. Stop reinventing the wheel! ( kbin.social )
(Please keep in mind this is something I've written in regards to all of these various social platforms, not just kbin, mastodon, lemmy, etc)...