why does /pol/ always do this and treat like an actual argument?
>>572325
Well, I mean, I do that too.
>>572351
wow that was quick
>>572354
OP posted almost an hour ago and that drawing took me like... 6 minutes?
>>572325
Well, it's not too far off from the real thing, sadly.
I kind of like them, whoever makes them just does a bang up job on the facial expressions
>>572325
Theres a reason why /pol/ shares a website with virgins, spergs, furries, pedos, weebs, and social rejects.
>>572379
(People shouldn't need to be responsible for their own safety. This is literally why we have police.)
>>572398
It literally isn't. Police are not required to protect you. Your argument may hold more water when every non-police civilian has a group of police officers willing to travel with them everywhere, also willing to sacrifice their own life to save the individual. Even if that were the case, you would still be responsible for your own safety because you ostensibly are an adult and have some agency to choose where you go, and what you do. Police don't do this, however, and it isn't their job; their job is to take notes over your corpse, and decide who to arrest after the fact.
>>572415
It literally is in many countries outside the United "The 2nd Amendment was originally ratified to help slave owners prevent a slave uprising, and now you're fooled into believing that it's so that you can rebel against your government, even though rebelling against the government is illegal" States.
Everybody having guns necessitates everybody else having guns, but nobody having guns means nobody needs to have guns. Australia took away all the guns and they don't have mass shootings anymore. Having a gun doesn't protect you from somebody else shooting you when you aren't ready for them.
>>572429
I should note that the second amendment was made before we had formal modern day police officers. The police force was made because of prohibition.
Guns have been the antithesis of safety since they were invented. Nothing invented to kill people will ever make a person safer. Maybe if everybody walked around in bullet proof vests (which are illegal in New York for some reason. Why do you think that is?) that would be being responsible for your safety. Owning a gun just makes you responsible for everybody else's safety, and open you up to getting shot by your child.
"Shoot him before he shoots me" is how people get shot in the first place.
>>572432
Oh I should note one last thing. That thing about bullet proof vests being illegal in new york was a lie. I'm just fucking with you because this discussion is stupid. I await your essay. Last post I promise. Sorry.
>>572432
>>572434
nah, guns are a good thing
I live in Australia and you can't even go outside in a bad neighbourhood without getting stabbed to death by nigger and muslim gangs
If I had a gun that would mitigate the whole situation because they would fear for their own death even if they have guns
if it's them vs me with machetes then I'm fucking dead if they gang up on me
>>572436
Why don't you just carry around your badass katana and teleport behind them?
>>572429
>It literally is in many countries
in what country are police your personal body guards?
>The 2nd Amendment was originally ratified to help slave owners prevent a slave uprising, and now you're fooled into believing that it's so that you can rebel against your government, even though rebelling against the government is illegal
this is an old argument that hinges upon the south having slave patrol militias, but falls apart because the definition of militia has changed repeatedly--it's a historian's fallacy to make this argument, as well as a completely retarded notion of what "State" means
>Everybody having guns necessitates everybody else having guns, but nobody having guns means nobody needs to have guns.
think about this one a little bit harder. If it were even remotely true, firearms never would have been invented or proliferated beyond being trivial novelties.
>Australia took away all the guns and they don't have mass shootings anymore.
Australia never had the gun culture that the US has, nor did they ever have a notion of right to bear arms--firearms were always relatively restricted. we're not Australia.
>Having a gun doesn't protect you from somebody else shooting you when you aren't ready for them.
Neither does not having one, nor does not having one protect you from being killed with a knife, or a hammer, or a rock, or bare hands
>>572432
>I should note that the second amendment was made before we had formal modern day police officers
we had sheriffs
>The police force was made because of prohibition.
this is factually incorrect
>>572434
you googled it and realized you needed to backpedal :^)
some body armor is restricted, however
>>572474
>you googled it and realized you needed to backpedal :^)
Shit, you got me!
>>572436
(not true btw)
>>572355
I am OP
>>572544
Neat!
This one is useful
>>572398
Okay then, leave your doors unlocked, your car unlocked, and feel free to wander around in dark alleys in the middle of the night in the slums of large cities.
After all, you have the police to protect you.
>>572843
The police aren't there to protect us in the US.
They're SUPPOSED to be, but they aren't.
>>572398
Bitch I live in Flint. The police aren't gonna do shit and the 2nd Amendment is going to protect me by letting me own a firearm.
>>572859
We agree that the police aren't going to do shit in the US. We just disagree on whether or not they should. See, I'm one of those stupid people who thinks that the police should actually live up to "To Serve And Protect" or they should stop fucking lying about it.
>>572861
Well geefucking wilkers, you think they're gonna do that?
Get your head outta your ass and start looking at reality, they aren't going to protect shit and it must be in the hands of a citzien to protect themselves. No "b-b-but they should do there jobs." All that is, is just useless thinking and swimming in the cloud of shit.
>>572865
It's less "but they should do their jobs" and more "B-b-b-b-but they should be like every other first world country!"
America more closely resembles Mexico and shit than they resemble any of the real white people countries and it's pretty pitiful that we're actually somehow proud of that.
>>572875
>first world country!
You mean be a part of NATO?
Stupid fuck, learn your terms before you use it. Police don't do shit, and the civilians should have weapons.
>>572879
My bad. When I said "First World Country" I meant the modern version of the term. I meant "Rich Democracy". I didn't mean in the World War 2 sense that nobody has used since World War 2.
Hope that clears the meaning up so that you can better understand me.
> Police don't do shit,
Agreed.
>and the civilians should have weapons.
Disagree.
>Police shouldn't do shit.
Wholeheartedly disagree.
>>572883
>Disagree.
So you want to get shot? Because that's an easy way to get shot my friend.
>>572887
I won't get shot if they don't have guns either, buddy.
Also guns aren't bullet shields. The only way a gun can prevent you from getting shot is if you shoot them first. Guns don't help you while you're asleep. Guns don't help you while they're in your gun safe. Guns don't help you while they aren't actively cocked and loaded. Guns don't help you not get shot unless you're willing and ready to take another man's life at a moment's notice. Maybe I'm too much of a pussy but I don't like the idea of killing people, and frankly I don't like the idea of being expected to be okay with killing people.
>>572889
>I won't get shot if they don't have guns either, buddy.
Bullshit negro. They could get it illegally.
>>572891
Is there some stereotype about black people not wanting to shoot people with guns that I don't know about?
>>572893
The fuck you on? You don't get it. If they have a gun, illegally mind you, and they keep it, what's to, you know, shoot at me because I'm not armed. People should be armed to protect themselves.
>>572894
No no, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm just wondering why you threw out "negro" is all.
>>572895
Because it works, negro.
>>572894
What exactly is stopping them from shooting you while you're armed? In fact, you being armed means they HAVE to shoot you or you're gonna shoot them. The only way for that ne'er-do-well to defend themself is to shoot you first.
>>572895
Because they don't actually have an argument
>>572896
Okay, but what is it working to accomplish?
>>572901
>Why should I shoot first?
Wait, hold on, is the gun protecting you because you expect to NOT DIE when you're shot, so you can pull out your gun and shoot them back?
Hey, do you know what guns actually do?
>>572904
>Wait, hold on, is the gun protecting you because you expect to NOT DIE when you're shot.
Why should he shoot first? If the person see's that I'm armed it reaches a point of "I'm going to get shot" on both sides.
>Hey, do you know what guns actually do?
Kill.
>>572906
So, serious question here. How do guns actually protect you? What exactly is the method of action of a gun protecting you? Walk me through it. Pretend you're a negro and now some NeoNazi wants to shoot you in an altercation. You both have guns. What happens?
>>572910
>How do guns actually protect you?
They allow you to protect.
>What happens?
Someone is getting shot, maybe him, maybe me.
>>572914
>They allow you to protect.
In what way?
>>572916
Gives you the ability to shoot.
>>572918
And how does that protect?
>>572920
This isn't a /pol/ thread. On /pol/ the anti-gun guy would have been banned by now.
>>572919
Because it allows you to be a farther distance away and not get hurt.
>>572415
>Police are not required to protect you.
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
>>572923
What does that have to do with protecting?
>>572927
Are you getting harmed?
>>572929
What would I be being harmed by?
>>572930
Don't know. You're protected because you get the ability to be on the same level as the other guy with a gun.
>>572933
Wouldn't that be true if neither of us had guns?
>>572934
No.
>>572939
Any reason why us both not having guns wouldn't put me on the same level as them? Is it because they might be stronger than me? Isn't that analogous to them being a better shot than me or having initiative advantage in a firearm related altercation?
>>572944
>Isn't that analogous to them being a better shot than me or having initiative advantage in a firearm related altercation?
Then get better at shooting.
>>572946
But what happens if they get better at shooting too? What if shooting is a more relevant part of their life than it is mine because they're a murderer and I'm a regular person with a white collar job?
>>572953
>What if shooting is a more relevant part of their life than it is mine because they're a murderer and I'm a regular person with a white collar job?
Then why are you picking fights with murderers?
>>572958
Do you actually think that everybody who gets shot picked a fight?
>>572959
In downtown Flint, yeah.
>>572960
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2016/05/man_shot_killed_while_working.html
This man picked a fight?
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2016/05/two_people_injured_after_dayti.html
And these two?
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2016/04/man_dead_after_shooting_outsid.html
And this guy?
http://www.miheadlines.com/2016/04/21/flint-18-yr-old-arrested-shooting-mother-son/
And you think this woman and her son picked a fight?
>>572964
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yeah.
>>572966
Any particular reason? Is the news lying or something when they use terminology like "innocent bystander" perhaps?
Followup question, supposing I were a gun owner. Do you think that picking a fight with me was wise? Why or why not? This isn't a threat, but we're doing a hypothetical right now. People have beer killed over less severe things than this argument you're having with me right now.
>>572974
>supposing I were a gun owner
But you aren't. You said it yourself that you're a pussy.
>>572980
Do you have an imagination?
>>572325
because they haven't been deleted yet like they should be.
>>572325
>Why do people use an imageboard like an imageboard?
>>573012
I do. And I know, that it's hard to imagine you with a gun.
>>573042
Haha, this argument is pretty shitty because they take the "image" in "imageboard" literally without even knowing how they work.
>>573100
Do your best.
>>573110
At what? All you've given me is some bullshit about how you think people shouldn't be able to arm themselves
>>573113
Yeah, but in doing so I've learned so much about the magical fantasy land you live in where you think everybody having guns somehow makes you safer than nobody having guns because somehow you think nobody having guns means everybody has guns except you.
>>573138
Are you telling me the bad guy isn't going to have guns?
>>572325
Because they started as two actual statements made by the same person, they mock an argument, not make one.
>>573146
The idea that you are incapable of even imagining a place where bad guys don't have guns, despite real life places where bad guys don't have guns existing, is incredible.
>>573216
While we're imagining things, let's just imagine a world with no bad guys.
>>573218
Nah, let's imagine the world you live in where people don't shoot each other because they might get shot back by the person they just shot.
>>572663
Please replace the aussie flag with canadian flag
>make a valid point that can be refuted logically and rationally
>everyone sees the flag so you get a thousand replies saying "A FUCKING LEAF"
Aussies aren't even hated that much anymore
>>573227
>Nah, let's imagine the world you live in where people don't shoot each other because they might get shot back by the person they just shot.
Sounds perfect.
>>573230
Oh shit. Somebody just invented shooting somebody in a way that kills them so they can't shoot back! Fuck! Now what?
>>573233
Try to not get shot and go for the gun?
Are we doing some /tg/ freeform RP shit right now? Are you gonna pretend to be a girl or some shit?
>>573244
>LOL
What is up, you summer fuck. You fag probably coming in from reddit trying to treat this place like it's a shithole.
>>573229
Hey Lao Tsung enjoying Vancouver?
>Be American.
>Using my psychic evildoer detection powers to see which of the people around me wants to kill me.
>Detect one.
>Pull out gun and shoot him before he draws his weapon.
>Tell police it was self defense.
>Problem solved.
It's not hard.
>>573255
What if somebody else gets a false positive on you and you get shot?
>>572325
Because /pol/ is for memes. Politics is just an excuse to post memes.
>>573261
My evildoer detection powers would anticipate that and I'd shoot him first.
>>573261
Then I think anon is dead.
>>573264
But how is he evil?
>>573267
He was about to shoot me.
>>573269
So?
>>573104
>haha let me explain why this argument is shitty without explaining why it's shitty at all
>>573270
So if I wasn't going to shoot him, but he was going to shoot me, then he wasn't acting in self defense, but I was.
>>573273
But he was and so were you.
Both are in the right.
>>573277
No, his psychic evildoer detector triggered a false positive. Mine successfully saw that he was going to shoot me. I wasn't going to shoot him until he was going to shoot me. The spark that prompted the altercation was due to a malfunction on his part, which is evidenced, logically, in the fact that he was shot and I wasn't.
>>573284
Stop that.
>>573288
What's so hard to understand? I wouldn't have shot him if I hadn't been in danger, whereas he was just going to shoot me even though he wasn't in danger, placing me in danger, so I had to protect myself.
>>573299
No. You see, you're trying to strawman my argument that people should be armed to protect themselves so that people can be able to protect themselves from each other.
>>572357
>>573301
And just what is wrong with my scenario that makes it any different from your ideal world?
Let's change "Psychic Evildoer Detector" to "Fear" and see what changes?
>>573323
I don't have an ideal world.
>>573324
And you never will either.
>>573339
So then why are you trying to express what you want?
>>573229
>Be Australian
>Post literally economic data and a decent explanation of how policy is affecting the economy on both a macro and micro economic level
>Since reality goes against /pol/s narrative
>"Oh look at the flag, CAN'T STOP SHITPOSTING"
>Literally the only one in the thread who is actually on topic and discussing something seriously rather than turning a story about economic policy into crying about feminists and jews.
I feel for you as well Canada, I see plenty of decent Canadian posts completely shitposted with "A FUCKING LEAF" if it doesn't fit /pol/s narrative.
>>572889
It's called deterrence. People are less willing to mess with an armed person. Ask a security guard how many times they get assailed.
>>572325
Because /pol/ is 15 year old underage b& and the rare thread that is actually about politics.
>>573396
Fuck off.soft cunt
>>572355
You still have a rather good speed to quality ratio. Certainly there is "better" art out there but you get the job done quite effectively considering the time you spend on it. And it's also a very cute style.
why does /qa/ even exist? This board has the biggest amount of fucking whiners i have ever seen holy shit
>>573678
This guy actually gets it.
>>572351
Are you the person who drew this?
>>573396
Try /biz/.
>>574189
>it's a job where your at risked
Gee. Fucking. Wilkers. Anon.
>>573713
>Because /pol/ is 15 year old underage b& and the rare thread that is actually about politics.
Sad but true.
>>574222
Dammit we need to nuke /pol/ again.
>>574208
But why don't their weapons protect them from other people's weapons?
>>572398
Police are liars and racists though.
>>572925
They're not. If a police officer watches you get killed and does nothing, there is no liability, unless you were in his custody or he somehow contributed to getting you killed.
>>574510
A gun is now a shield?
>>575738
>I don't enjoy wild rides
>>575743
I want to get off.
>>575753
You don't get off the gun politic ride.
We need firearms to protect ourselves from others.
>>575754
But what if his psychic gun predictor malfunctions and he thinks I'm going to shoot him when I wasn't going to until he started to shoot me? Now who was in the wrong? Which one was self defense and who actually deserved to die?
>>575757
>Which one was self defense
The person who shoots after the first guy who tried to shoot him.
>who actually deserved to die?
The person who's dead.
>>572325
They must be working if they trigger you so hard
>>575786
>t. I don't know a single thing about deterrence and my country never fought a war for independent
>>575791
>What fucking independence?
I didn't know the US is part of the UK and all of it's faggotry. Thanks for teaching me about how the US is a crown dependent you fucking twat.
>>575792
>Thinks the UK is still an empire
They just voted to leave the EU because they think that they deserve their own Independence Day.
>>575796
>being an autist that doesn't understand US history
>>575799
I know about the American Revolution, dumbass.
You're aware that was more than a year ago, right?
>>575805
Of course, and we should keep to what the founding fathers had said.
Guns are vital to this nation.
>>575808
Ah this argument.
https://www.google.com/search?q=the+second+amendment+was+for+slavery&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=the+second+amendment+slavery
Now, assuming you agree with the instution of slavery, then we're done and have nothing more to discuss because we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, but if you actually believe the second amendment was about our right to fight invaders and defend ourselves from our government then you're simply mistaken. That is right wing revisionism, like the people who remove the N-Word from Mark Twain books.
>>575810
>but if you actually believe the second amendment was about our right to fight invaders and defend ourselves from our government then you're simply mistaken.
Uh no, meanings change you dunce. We have these guns and people have the right to use and own them.
>>575812
If the meaning changed then it isn't what our founding fathers said. You've been misled.
>>575814
Founding fathers said:
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now, for me, security means protect. So if I have a gun I'm able to protect myself and the state (Because I pay taxes).
>>575816
Yeah but that doesn't say why.
>>575817
You don't need to ask why. If you need to ask why then you aren't a patriot.
>>575819
If patriot means "mindless drone who believes the first thing I hear and doesn't consider the second thing's merit" then I know exactly why I'm not a "Patriot".
You can criticize your father.
>>575820
>Why should I protect my country
That's what you're saying.
>>575822
Joining the army and getting a gun is different from getting a gun and being a private citizen with guns.
>>575824
We aren't talking about fighting for Israel and the jews.
>>575825
No, we aren't, so why are you talking about protecting your country?
>>575826
Because I own property and I want to protect it.
>>574225
Undoubtedly, it's become so popular that it's entering the conscience of mainstream news, just like Chanology or Gamergate, that hurts the site. If anything it should be fucked around with at random intervals so it can't remain a stable home for the dumb activism.
>>575877
How about they nuke /pol/ after the elections, say it's a butthurt mod who was
>putting money on Clinton to win
and spam the board for a week, just to drive away the people on there.
>>575877
>it's become so popular that it's entering the conscience of mainstream news, just like Chanology or Gamergate
Oh thank god, I'm not the only one who noticed that similarity.
>If anything it should be fucked around with at random intervals so it can't remain a stable home for the dumb activism
You could always unleash the forbidden force that crippled /b/ six years ago.
>>575968
>You could always unleash the forbidden force that crippled /b/ six years ago.
Shit, does even /pol/ deserve that?
>>576004
>Shit, does even /pol/ deserve that?
Why yes, neo-neoReddit deserves it.
>>575883
Making a newfag fest on it is exactly what you're supposed to try and impede retard
>>576015
Then tell me how are we suppose to cleanse reddit off of here.
>>576016
Either be elitist or make the mods be elitist.
Or make it barely usable for a period of time, casuals will stop using it.
>>576029
>Or make it barely usable for a period of time,
Yeah, that's why you nuke the board and make it godawful and shoo them away.
>>576030
Spamming the board only invites outsides to join the fun and gives them one more reason to browse the board
>>574808
>>>/blm/
>>576065
Then what are they going to do, the posters there aren't going to become /a/ lite over night. And the mods don't care about /pol/.
lmao
>>576075
Post porn and gore so normalfags try to avoid it and journalists keep giving it bad publicity
>>576104
>journalists keep giving it bad publicity
Which is literally an invitation for edgelords. That being said, I have no better idea either.
>>576104
No, that still draws in reddit shit.
>>572325
>reductio ad absurdum isn't an argument
Looks like OP needs to stay in school.
>>576110
Then again, elitism, shit on anything you see that makes you realize someone is from reddit. This only makes them try and hide their faggotry but at least it makes them also feel like they're not in good company
>>576135
Anon they reached a point where it's more redditors than actual people from here.
Hey guys! I made a new one. Hope you like it! I didn't really draw it for you guys I just kinda drew it and I thought I'd share. Polite sage.
>>577304
Could you do something with the gun argument above?
>>573396
/pol/ is a containment board
Like another anon mentioned, /biz/ is the far better board if you actually wanna talk about economics and fiscal policy, they don't really give a fuck about the bizarro world SJWism of the alt-right like /pol/ does, especially if it's not about that money
>>577304
/r/ing one that is ambiguously LTR/RTL, which change its meaning
>>578932
Oh man, like one that's different depending on if you read it like it's a mango vs if you read it like it's a western comic? That sounds amazing. I'll see what I can do, and I'll try to make the style more eastern looking.
>>577304
The words are too big in this one, one should never have to engage their brain when reading a comic.
>>578938
yes, exactly
>>578992
... so I ended up having some sort of autism fit and did this thing with numbers for an imaginary universe all night instead of drawing your comic.
I'll do it some other time. I didn't forget about you. Sorry. It's 6AM. I gotta go to bed. Night.
>>572390
THIS
It's amazing how /pol/ existence throws reddit libshits into foaming at the mouth pants pissing rage.
>>579195
I never thought about it this way. Perhaps Hitler wasn't such a bad guy after all.
Thanks internet
This one's my favorite
>>572325
The ones that point out fallacious arguments or logical issues are fine I think, they're just an easier way of getting that point across, but yeah, they're taking what are intended as satire, and using it as serious political criticism, despite the people who make those images generally making just as many that mock /pol/ views as well.
>>581280
/pol/ spends all it's time sperging out about shit that's completely off topic, like we saw in this thread. /pol/ is anyone who feels the need to force their political opinions into every thread as far as I see it, no matter what they are.
I thought these newfags from /pol/ were kicked from /v/.
>>>/v/343853830
Why is /qa/ so triggered by people who aren't ashamed to be white?
>>581397
>. /pol/ is anyone who feels the need to force their political opinions into every thread as far as I see it
/pol/ lets anyone with any ideology to post. Dissenting opinions are never deleted/downvoted into oblivion nor your account ever shadow banned. It's why leftist shills from reddit hate it so much. They have no control there and they know
>>581490
/pol/ is the most prominent culture on 4chan so to be counter culture you have to be counter /pol/
>>581497
>/pol/ lets anyone with any ideology to post. Dissenting opinions are never deleted/downvoted into oblivion nor your account ever shadow banned. It's why leftist shills from reddit hate it so much. They have no control there and they know
This is the stupidest argument mate. You post anything dissenting on /pol/ and you get called reddit, an SJW, a cuck, a degenerate, your thread gets spammed to shit and no-one discusses anything.
You also managed to completely ignore what I said, that /pol/ leaking is when people shove political bullshit into unrelated topics, not that /pol/ is worse than reddit, I didn't even mention reddit.
The whole shills meme is fucking stupid, too, no-one's shilling on your board you retard, take your meds.
>>582634
Well if you use '/pol/' to describe any right-wing ideology on the internet, you clearly don't understand the purpose of the board or the sentiment of the other half of the population who disagree with you. And you have the nerve to call them bigots.
Because in order to spew your political ideology on the internet you must have somewhat of an inflated ego and believe you're always right. It's inherent that these people dismiss any opposing view as quickly as they can. That's where the paint images and graphs come in.
>>583466
what does that even mean
>>583471
Can't help your lack of reading comprehension, sorry.
>>582634
>You post anything dissenting on /pol/ and you get called reddit, an SJW, a cuck, a degenerate, your thread gets spammed to shit and no-one discusses anything.
And you are free to ignore those and move on. See how being an adult works? It's not whining about being called a shill on a anime image board full of 14 year olds. Learn to grow thicker skin redditer
>>583473
what did he mean by this
>>583473
Reading comprehension is much easier when the writer knows English.
>>583498
I'll bite. What about that post did you not get?
>>583500
The fact that you thought it made sense to post that sentence in this thread on this website on the internet.
>>583502
Okay thanks for taking me down this pointless road. I thought for a second you'd actually address a point or something.
>>583505
How very relevant you must think of yourself.
>>583505
what did he mean by this...
>>583466
>It's inherent that these people dismiss any opposing view as quickly as they can.
Dismiss yes, but your posts are not deleted and your account banned like on reddit. You are angry because your shitty leftist arguments are mocked and derided. That's really the crux of your angry post
