Is there one thing that liberals are right about?

Is there one thing that liberals are right about?

Other urls found in this thread:

liberalismisasin.com/
naturalblaze.com/2016/05/40-studies-saying-gmos-are-bad-for-you.html
fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/bear spray.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
youtube.com/watch?v=QxU9sgX7_-E
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I think you mean left winger.

Liberal is positive term.

Yes. Conservatives.

Climate change
War is bad
Recreational drug uses is not harmful in moderation

Average citizens should not carry an assalt rifle.

It's just logical but amerifats are too busy eating burgers to think.

>Liberal is positive term.
Why?
>War is bad
Why?
>Recreational drug uses is not harmful in moderation
Why not?
>Average citizens should not carry an assalt rifle.
Why?

no there isn't. liberalism in its entire project, from its economic aspects to its social ones, is entirely anti-reality:
liberalismisasin.com/

They're right about conservatives being retarded.

Nothing else.

>>Average citizens should not carry an assalt rifle.
>Why?

Because the only purpose of an assalt rifle in a civilian society is to make mass shooting.

Because it kills good people, diplomacy is better. War is a necessary evil

And a lot of creative thinking stems from drug use

Listen Joao not everyone lives in your shithole of country Huezil where monkeynigs kill each other with assault rifles for no reason. Visit a first world country and see that guns are not just for killing people.

>being this ignorant
goddamn these ameritards just dont get it

sorry to offend you Muhammad, ramadan mubarak my friend

I only remember one mass shooting in Brazil and it was with some pistols.

The burgerland is the land of mass shootings. See your own country before talk about anothers.

No.

I can understand limiting real assault rifles, especially in urban settings and cities. It does too much damage.

And if you think firing 30 rounds into a crowd won't do any damage because "muh 5.56 is about wounding" or "he'll empty his clip in 2 seconds and won't kill anyone", then you're a dumbass.

>Because the only purpose of an assalt rifle in a civilian society is to make mass shooting.
How were assalt rifle made for mass shooting?
>Because it kills good people, diplomacy is better. War is a necessary evil
If war is necessary then how is it bad?
>And a lot of creative thinking stems from drug use
How does drug use induce creative thinking?

Most mass shootings in the US were committed with pistols. The definition of mass shooting was changed under Obongo to purposely instill fear in retards like you; it used to be 3 or more killed, now it's just 4+ people involved.

Nice strawman, not an argument.

Hence why the Jews want us to carry assult weapons

>How were assalt rifle made for mass shooting?

They were made for war, since people are not soldiers there is no need to have one, unless you are a crazy who wants make mass shootings or a paranoid fatard.

Pretty sure the ones made for war are generally full auto.

They know how to control other peoples' imaginations, and through that, our actions and social constructs.

Unfortunately, that's not enough for them... they want to be able to break the laws of physics as easily as they break our wills, and are currently throwing a toy-smashing temper tantrum as more people choose "survival" instead of "drink the Kool-Aid one last time."

You're right, Brazil's system prevents murder much better....right?

Brazil, know the world over for the lowest murder rates in the land.

>creative thinking
No. You just think that because you're fucked up on drugs. Any sober person would see your inane drug induced rambles as brain damage.

So there's no other purpose of them except mass shootings and war?

Agreed. Only reason I think you realistically need one is if you live or travel in places where you might be savages by a moose or bear or something.

every semi auto gun fires a bullet the same way.

what makes it an assault rifle?

Modern liberalism is all about compassion without brains. It's about doing things for a seemingly just reason, without thinking nor caring about the consequences.

So I would say the benefit of that is that you have to take risks to advance humanity. If we were too conservative, then no science experiments, nor philosophy or really anything new would be tried.

For modern life, that means helping the little guy. The guy who is in the dumps, or has mental or physical problems. There's no logical reason to help him. It's a waste of resources. Yet liberals would, and that creates an environment where bad-blood is far more sparse. Where people feel less bitter or terrified of life, and can focus much more on activities not about themselves.

Liberalism could work only if nobody seeks to take advantage of this compassion, and only if immigrants don't already have a hatred of us before they come in.

I guarantee you that there is less murders by assalt rifles in Brazil than US.

>net neutrality
>privacy
>hate for corporations (though not in their amount, but the GMO hate is pretty spot on)
>hate for oil industry
>overfishing (whales in particular)
>pollution
>money in politics
>banking system (though the right hates them more specifically, joos)
>authority and violence monopoly (their solutions are shit though, guns are good for self defense)

That's your justification? Pic fucking related

Let me break down just how fucking stupid your "logic" is.

>Lets ban all paperclips in country A
>Country A has zero paperclips
>Country B is not insane, they have paperclips
>Someone dies in Country B by a crazy man stabbing him a paperclip in the throat
>Country B has more deaths by paperclips than Country A
>PAPERCLIPS ARE EVIL, NO CITIZEN NEEDS THAT LEVEL OF AUTOMATIC PAPER RETENTION
>BAN ALL PAPERCLIPS

I would tell you to drink bleach, but considering how everything in your shithole of a country looks like it's covered in 12 layers of dirt, I doubt you can afford it.

>Only legitimate reason to own one is moose/bear attacks

That has to be the most retarded reason to own a gun. Moose and bear don't randomly attack people, and when they do, people with bear spray tend to get smacked by bears less than people with guns do because it's harder to miss with bear spray, and bear spray is more compact than guns and a fraction of the price. It's especially more reliable than guns in close range attacks where you have to react in a split second, it's successful in stopping attacks

This, although drugs are harmful no matter what
Although you probably shouldn't ban them, dumb people will do them anyways, don't put them in jail instead of a stealing nigger

Abortion.
That's about it.

>Lets ban all nukes in country A
>Country A has zero nukes
>Country B is not insane, they have nukes
>Everyone in a city dies in Country B by a crazy man detonating a nuke
>Country B has more deaths by nukes than Country A
>NUKES ARE EVIL, NO CITIZEN NEEDS THAT LEVEL OF DESTRUCTION
>BAN ALL NUKES

I mean >90% of the time

Meant to reply.

liberal is positive because it refers to less laws and less government

Example: Liberterianism

nothing, the 1700s subversion must be exterminated.

But war is good, right?

I think we can all agree that war is breddy gud and should be encouraged

>>net neutrality
>giving the government control of the internet
>good
>>privacy
They aren't crazy about privacy but compared to the right yeah.
>>hate for corporations (though not in their amount, but the GMO hate is pretty spot on)
GMOs will save us in the future.
>>hate for oil industry
I guess somebody has to.
>>overfishing (whales in particular)
And then they place stupid restrictions on overpopulated animals and let them devour everything and suffer. Any attempts to cull the hordes are made illegal, or require SUPER ULTRA HUMANE METHODS such as capturing every single female of the species and spaying them.
>>pollution
Non-liberals don't mind dirty air?
>>money in politics
Unless it's their guy.
>>banking system (though the right hates them more specifically, joos)
Both sides curse banks but do nothing.
>>authority and violence monopoly (their solutions are shit though, guns are good for self defense)
Statist.

I'm a wildernessbro/survivalist so I spend a lot of time in the woods. Only things I go in there with are some emergency rations, a steel hatchet, and an autoshotgun with bear slugs. I have never had to use it but I think it's the only reason you should have an automatic weapon.

I believe that everyone has a right to own apepper rifles.

>Liberal is positive term.
Depends on circumstances.
>War is bad
Why? depends on circumstances
>Recreational drug uses is not harmful in moderation
Why not?
>Average citizens should not carry an assalt rifle.
Liberals do not want an empowered populace.

What
The
Fuck
Is
An
Assault
Rifle

I don't cares if you own a gun, you care if I own a gun, you are the problem.

It's not that war is good or bad. It's something that happens and is a fact of life because the world is a brutal place. You better be prepared for it.

Thats a typical shill response, or just very dumb

naturalblaze.com/2016/05/40-studies-saying-gmos-are-bad-for-you.html

Jesus. You know nothing about net neutrality, on the internet. Net neutrality is not a pro or an anti thing, its an assurance that the way the internet exists, will not be changed by other parties.

I wont even go into the other topics, you are just heavily uneducated.

This analogy would work with the context of the argument if country A has far more deaths per year than Country B even if one of their cities were to be nuked every single year.

>nd see that guns are not just for killing people.

What other uses then does a assault rifle has? Other then recreational?

power

I can understand that. But if I'm being perfectly honest, when I think of how much more effective guns are against bears and how empirically the evidence points to most guns in the hands of most users being significantly less effective than bear spray, and the risk of some retarded ass hunter shooting me in the face, I don't think you can reasonably promote loose gun control in the interest of the safety of outdoorsmen.

I really am just saying this out of anti-gun sentiment, I'm being honest here. It's just not a justification for loose gun laws that makes sense.

Now there are reasons to promote gun culture here in BC, hunting is beneficial to our province in some ways, we just went through a wolf cull in order to save our caribou. Hunters serve an important role in preserving the interior and natural areas in general. Also guns are fun.

I just think arguing that we need guns to protect us from moose/bear attacks is a bad argument. Yes, in theroy a wise outdoorsman could use a gun to protect himself from more distant threats, and bearspray to protect himself from a sudden close range attack. However, in reality, if we armed every outdoorsmen with a gun to protect themselves from the vile threat of bears/moose the data reflects that more people would end up getting attacked by bears because they would opt for less reliable guns over more reliable bear spray, and we would have a whole lot more people getting shot by retarded people with guns.

USFWS fact sheet on the issue fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/bear spray.pdf

After firing a few magazines you can wrap bacon around the barrel and cook it

ur waifu is cute
CUTE

>Rat testing
>Reliable

Rats will get cancer just from being breathed on.
> its an assurance that the way the internet exists, will not be changed by other parties.
You mean the belief that lovers of the internet from all political spectrums have? Excuse me for not knowing your new Kony2012 movement, as if this desire for an unmolested internet is something new or god forbid a leftist thing.

Do you know what an assault rifle is?

healthy eating and the environment

Nice try bear. The internet is for humans.

Spanking
War is bad (seems like liberals don't believe this one anymore)
Abortion (although for the wrong reasons)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

So what other uses does a assault rifle has?

>muh ammunition
>muh not automatic

Yes I don't use my AR-15 to hunt at all. It would blow up the deer.

>this is what liberals actually believe

MAGA MAGA MAGA

We should have completely free government funded abortion for every single person.

I prefer classical liberalism.

>end slavery
>they're still savages though

>women can vote
>but only married women who's husband owns land

oh so you are a shill

youtube.com/watch?v=QxU9sgX7_-E

that claim about rats has been debunked twice in the court of law.

seriously though, fuck off shill.

That picking your candidate based on the loudmouth celebrity retard vote is probably a bad idea when it comes to an actual election.

Explain to me what you think an assault rifle is, instead of posting wikipedia articles. What is the difference between a rifle and an assault rifle? Without looking anything up either.

Its literally common knowledge that many rats are extremely prone to tumors and could get them from even a food we commonly eat.

Go fuck a tree you god damn hippy.

>court of law literally says that the results were legit and that you are full of shit

TWICE

Nice get

In the long run progressive liberals always win...
>sometime they have to wait until knuckledraggers such as pol-tards die off to win

>climate change

>science over religion

>golden rule moral standards to the average Joe who hasn't done anything wrong

>abortion

That's about it.

Now watch as no one answers this question.

A drug is any chemical substance that affects the body's physiological processes.

Water is a drug.

You literally have to use drugs to stay alive.

assault rifle = 20-30 bullets per mag.

when i think of rifle I think of 12 shots at most, something that you can't hipfire with any meaningful result.

>No. You just think that because you're fucked up on drugs. Any sober person would see your inane drug induced rambles as brain damage.

Not who you are talking to, but there are plenty of brilliant artists that were known to be drug addicts. I'm not saying drugs aren't harmful, they obviously are, but they can enhance creativity in talented people.

........ so if I use an extended magazine in my pistol it's now an assault rifle?

>magazine size = rifle ???

Universal Healthcare
Climate change
War on Drugs is a failure
Gay marriage
The war in Iraq is a disaster
Minimum wage is too low (although shouldn't be 15$)
Universal background checks and people on no fly list shouldn't be able to get a gun

Things liberals are wrong about:
Banning guns altogether, it'll just create a black market and a criminal will get a gun if they really want one, no matter how many weapons you ban
Political correctness- makes people more sensitive to offensive language, destroys freedom of speech
Affirmative action- reverse racism
globalization- for the most part it has been really bad for people and jobs

Nope. Liberalism ruined white civilization.

You have no defensible reason for extended mag beyond higher body count.

Forgot the most important part, they're also wrong about Islam. Islam is a cancer and needs to be banned before sharia law becomes a reality. No matter what liberals might think that muslims may have good intentions, Islam doesn't share the same freedom values that we do.

Freedom. Also, there's no guarantee gungrabbers will stop at 12 round restrictions then leave guns alone even after further murders. I think most gun enthusiasts would happily limit their mag size to 12 if it meant people would back off, but it never ends.

That doesn't answer my question.

According to you... and correct me if I'm wrong... a magazine can change ANY weapon to an assault rifle?

So by this logic if I take an SKS that only holds 10 rounds and set it up so it can take 30 round magazines that makes it an assault rifle?

The Virginia tech guy wrecked a bunch of people with like 10 bullet mags. Reloading isn't hard m8.

>I think most gun enthusiasts would happily limit their mag size to 12 if it meant people would back off, but it never ends.

Well no shit, their end goal is no fun allowed. Just giving you the logical argument that's going to be used.

>redefine mass shooting by raising the bar
>mass shootings still occur at historic rates
>"it's just obongo trying to scare people, thanks Obama"
I can't believe this imbecile's vote will count the same as mine when he grows older

>I think most gun enthusiasts would happily limit their mag size to 12 if it meant people would back off.

HAHAHA...I hate to break it to you, but most gun enthusiasts would laugh in your face with that statement. It's a big deal, just as big as the left trying to ban "assault rifles".

That makes it an illegal weapon, yeah.

The terminology is irrelevant, you need to attack the argument itself, not the semantics.

This post got me to look into the affair, very interesting aquafresh.

So the study specifically regards GMO corn that won't be killed by Glyphosate/Monsantos roundup?

Let me look at criticisms

>Study involved lower number of rats than is normal for studies of carcinogenity. Control group was 20 rats.

>Strain of rats used unusually prone to tumors, which makes the increase of tumor in the groups fed the GMO corn less significant, as tumor prone rats are going to have more variation in number of tumors

>study authors conclusively said that the study proved that GMOs/Roundup caused tumors, not that it even suggested it, which is overstating how certain you can be that his wasn't a statistical fluke. Even I can see some obvious errors were made in the studys conclusion.

>there were criticisms that the study could have possibly shown a link between roundup/GMOs and cancer pretty much no matter what, which I would also consider more or less true

Yeah I'm looking at this myself and not listening to what the shills say, I'm looking through the study, and all these criticisms seem valid. The Séralini study might suggest that GMOs/Roundup causes cancer in rats, and further study should be done, but the conclusive sensationalist claims by the studies authors were unscientific, and the design of the study was always unlikely to produce a statistically significant result.

Liberals are right about everything.

Fuck you fascists. Move to Iran.

>Banning guns altogether, it'll just create a black market and a criminal will get a gun if they really want one, no matter how many weapons you ban
This is a specious argument. Of course laws will be broken, that is why you institute punishment. Every law is broken on a daily basis.

>Political correctness- makes people more sensitive to offensive language, destroys freedom of speech
There is no reason to scream nigger. You only want to do it to prove you can.

>Affirmative action- reverse racism
Racism is still a problem. If this was no in place qualified black people would not be hired.

>globalization- for the most part it has been really bad for people and jobs
This is bipartisan, but for the most part I agree.

That the environment is extremely important and needs to be protected, which means govt regulation since businesses don't give a shit. Also compassion for hardworking immigrants from south of the border who truly just want to feed their families.

That's pretty much it. I try to see things from the left's perspective but mostly it is so illogical that I can't even understand how someone can think like that

*could NOT have shown a link.

I also see criticisms of the studies methodology, but I'm not really familiar enough with scientific experimentation to be able to tell bad methodology from good methodology unless obvious mistakes were made. I am however good enough at math to know their results aren't statistically significant.

Protectionism, safety nets, a concern for ecology, social justice(in the traditional sense)

Cool, but you still have 300-500% more homicides than us. How can that possibly happen without assault rifles? Unless violent criminals are the problem rather than their means or killing?

Those are shill claims, shill arguments literally used every single time.

They were dismissed by the court of law. Am I arguing with a chatbot at this point? These claims are not valid. The rats were not extra prone to any tumors. They were validly used for the study and the judges decided that the study was legit. Twice already.

At this point I am not even talking to you guys. I am showing it to the public, the onlookers on how wrong you are. They will look a the links and they will know, and secondly, they will also see what kind of shilling around GMO's happens on Sup Forums.

Why dont you switch to another vpn you fucking shill kike. Seriously, go kill yourself for trying to fool people into eating cancer.

Why do you think the army brings assault rifles to places like Afghanistan and Iraq as opposed to knives? We can admit that one instrument is more efficient than the other, surely?

narcotic then because you're acting like a faggot

>This is a specious argument. Of course laws will be broken, that is why you institute punishment. Every law is broken on a daily basis.

Doesn't matter how much you punishment you try to instill, look at prohibition, failed massively, even with "punishments" and the war on drugs, utter joke. Banning weapons will just repeat the same failures. Instead they need to regulate it, to make it harder for those who shouldnt get a weapon and to prevent a black market from expanding.

>There is no reason to scream nigger.

Yes, there is, it's called freedom of speech. And if I want to say nigger ironically or as a means of satire, I will.

>If this was no in place qualified black people would not be hired.

Lmao you're a retard.

Yes. Fags. How the hell this became a "thing" and why anyone gives a fuck if some guy is drilling another guy's ass is beyond me.


Let them be gay, why do you care?