Jump to content

The Miscellaneous Liberal\PC BS\Commie Gibberish\Clown World\Lame Hunt Jokes\Corporate Virtue Signaling Thread

Featured Replies

49 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Usually what I see mocked isn't the family values part. It's where you see hypocrisy and a long list of republicans who chant family values then cheat on their wives, or for example leave a wife who's dying of cancer for a younger model, or maybe bang a porn star while the wife is home with a baby. 

Oh please.. the left has rolled it's eyes at "family values" since Reagan and their rejection of anything associated with the right.  Family values has a religious connotation to many on the left which in turn leads to don't push your morals on me attitudes.  It's intellectually dishonest to pretend that the left's only problem with "family values" is hypocrisy.  

  • Replies 14.6k
  • Views 482k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

Posted Images

The left has family values.  😂

Just now, bobeph said:

The left has family values.  😂

It's eye-roll worthy to even pretend that the left doesn't sometimes outright reject the concept.  It is often seen as running counter to feminism and other progressive ideals.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/why-is-it-hard-for-liberals-to-talk-about-family-values/278151/

No, guys....like, context, and stuff!   :roll:

 

1 hour ago, xzmattzx said:

Is it really? Rowling is a LGBT activist and a Liberal in Britain.

 

I really don't see why Kimmel gets to keep his job, if others who have done similar have to lose their jobs.

Yea really.  He is a liberal.  Yes they so eat there own at times.  But not one who will help push their agenda 

16 minutes ago, binkybink77 said:

Oh please.. the left has rolled it's eyes at "family values" since Reagan and their rejection of anything associated with the right.  Family values has a religious connotation to many on the left which in turn leads to don't push your morals on me attitudes.  It's intellectually dishonest to pretend that the left's only problem with "family values" is hypocrisy.  

I said that's what I see being mocked.

The left absolutely has an issue with a movement that touts the "traditional nuclear family" and uses it as a platform to launch attacks on things like gay rights and women in the workplace. 

"family values" was often a placeholder for "this is the one and only way you should live your life: be Christian or at least accept Judeo-Christian values, be straight, reject homosexuality as sin, no sex until marriage, and the wife should stay at home and raise the kids". 

And certainly many on the left reject pushing one group's morals on another. Or, more accurately, they reject codifying of said morals into law - which is something the "family values" platform has historically been supportive of.

21 minutes ago, binkybink77 said:

It's eye-roll worthy to even pretend that the left doesn't sometimes outright reject the concept.  It is often seen as running counter to feminism and other progressive ideals.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/why-is-it-hard-for-liberals-to-talk-about-family-values/278151/

Talk about the issue of fatherless (and child suportless) black children with a liberard and see if you can agree on anything.  Aint happening. 

8 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I said that's what I see being mocked.

The left absolutely has an issue with a movement that touts the "traditional nuclear family" and uses it as a platform to launch attacks on things like gay rights and women in the workplace. 

"family values" was often a placeholder for "this is the one and only way you should live your life: be Christian or at least accept Judeo-Christian values, be straight, reject homosexuality as sin, no sex until marriage, and the wife should stay at home and raise the kids". 

And certainly many on the left reject pushing one group's morals on another. Or, more accurately, they reject codifying of said morals into law - which is something the "family values" platform has historically been supportive of.

Ideally, wives should stay at home and raise their kids - and husbands should be active members of their families and not abandon their children.  People should wait until marriage to have sex if they can't manage to do so without getting pregnant where you end up with single mothers who can't possibly manage to supervise their children and work at the same time.  IF people conducted themselves that way, gangs wouldn't have such an easy time taking over whole neighborhoods and kids wouldn't be raised by the streets instead of their parents.  Saying this is MOCKED by the left for being too traditional and conservative - for not being progressive.  Both sides weaponize platforms in ways they shouldn't - but to say that the left doesn't outright mock the family values platform itself as some sort of horrific and archaic line of thinking is completely false.  I don't know why you'd disagree being that you're such a Republican and all :rolleyes:  

2 hours ago, xzmattzx said:

Is it really? Rowling is a LGBT activist and a Liberal in Britain.

 

I really don't see why Kimmel gets to keep his job, if others who have done similar have to lose their jobs.

You mean she’s an anti-LGBT activist, right? 

1 hour ago, binkybink77 said:

Well when Republicans try to advocate for "family values" it's mocked by the left - the party of "progress" and all of that. 

Yeah, their narrow definition of family values might be the problem there. They are mocked for bigotry and hypocrisy. 

58 minutes ago, bobeph said:

Someone learned a new big liberal word today.  :roll:

You should try learning. 

2 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Why do you dismiss kinetic energy? Injuries caused by AR-15 are very hard to treat exactly due to the amount of energy that the weapon can deliver to a target! It absolutely has to do with its lethality. 

Bullet for bullet, yes a hunting rifle is going to deliver even more. But you're not going to be able to deliver nearly as many rounds in the same time period with a hunting rifle compared to an AR-15.

The fact that handguns are used in committing the majority of murders actually helps my point about the lethality of the AR-15.  You argue out of one side of your mouth when you say "kinetic energy doesn't matter because hunting rifles have even more!" while also saying "you're more likely to be murdered by a handgun". reason being, my point about the AR-15 was its combination of high velocity/high energy rounds being delivered in a short amount of time. handguns are far less powerful yet are more likely to kill you - why? because it's easily concealed and carried. I never argued it was "all about" the kinetic energy, but you decided to seize on just that one item because you felt it was easy to pick apart on its own. but the point was about it being both able to deliver a lot of energy (which causes very serious wounds that are hard to treat), AND the ability to fire a high volume of rounds from a large magazine in a short amount of time.

And again, all of what I'm saying here is to get to where you might admit there's a reasonable conversation that could be had about gun control, and you decide instead to just stonewall for "reasons". 

CoordinatedWellinformedAdouri-size_restr
 

Kinetic energy has nothing to do with the lethality of an AR15. Let’s have some fun.

An AR15 is chambered in 5.56x45mm. Generally you will find the round size in 55gr or 62gr. Both ammo types prefer a barrel with a twist of 1:12 to properly stabilize the round, however 62gr steel core penetrator rounds require a 1:9 or 1:7 twist because those rounds are longer, thus requiring more of a twist to stabilize. The 5.56x45mm is an intermediate cartridge, meaning it’s smaller than larger cartridges (7.62x51mm) you’d typically find in battle rifles (AR10, FAL, G3). Given that the intermediate round is smaller by nature and creates a smaller wound channel than the larger caliber rounds, the 5.56x45mm round needs to be traveling above a certain velocity threshold in order to be effective, which is generally about 2700fps at the point of impact. Does this velocity threshold have anything to do with kinetic energy? No, it does not. You see, the 5.56x45mm round is spitzer shaped, meaning it carries all of its mass in the back of the round and the front of the round has a defined tip. If the round hits tissue above the velocity threshold, the drag of the tissue causes the round to rapidly lose velocity. "But but but, that’s the kinetic energy transfer I was talking about!” No, it’s not. That kinetic energy transfer won’t kill you. You see, what happens to a spitzer shaped round traveling above a certain velocity that rapidly slows is that, because of physics, the center of mass of the round, which is in the rear, wants to be the forward edge of movement. This then causes the rear of the round to move forward, which then makes the round aerodynamically unstable, which causes the round to tumble end over end in the tissue, and the tumbling makes the round unstable and the copper jacket starts to separate from the usually lead core, which causes fragmentation. So, the lethality comes from, not the transfer of kinetic energy, but from the round destabilizing, which creates a larger wound channel, and the round fragmenting, which creates additional injuries in tissue.

Kinetic energy, in terms of ballistics, means nothing. What means everything is where on the body the round is going and how big of a wound channel the round makes. It’s amazing how little kinetic energy transfer there is in soft tissue when it comes to ballistics. To get to a point where kinetic energy is lethal, you’re getting into explosive territory. Like big bomb explosive territory. 
 

Also the volume of fire means nothing unless you’re hitting what you’re aiming at. Which is hard to do. The second deadliest mass shooting in America was done with Glock pistols. 

1 minute ago, Bill said:

 

Also the volume of fire means nothing unless you’re hitting what you’re aiming at. Which is hard to do. The second deadliest mass shooting in America was done with Glock pistols. 

Impressive.  I can't hit the broad side of a barn with my Glock 21

9 minutes ago, paco said:

Impressive.  I can't hit the broad side of a barn with my Glock 21

What’s your issue with it?

1 minute ago, Bill said:

What’s your issue with it?

My aim

16 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

You should try learning. 

Quality retort their, Ricky Retardo. :roll:

2 minutes ago, paco said:

My aim

mHzXKu3.gif
 

 

where on the target are your rounds impacting compared to your point of aim? Are they low, high, left, right, connect the dots of the July 1995 Playmate of the a month?

Just now, Bill said:

mHzXKu3.gif
 

 

where on the target are your rounds impacting compared to your point of aim? Are they low, high, left, right, connect the dots of the July 1995 Playmate of the a month?

Yes :lol: 

 

My Ruger Mark VI I can hit anything with it.  The Glock 21, not so much.  (My Glock 19 I do ok with).  Honestly, i think its because the 21 has a much shorter barrel so my aim is all wack.  Lets just say shooting them has give me a healthy respect for how hard it is to be effective with them.  So when I see scenes like this, I have to laugh:

 

 

9 minutes ago, Bill said:

What’s your issue with it?

I know the issue @bobeph would have is his plumpy sausage fingers unable to wrap around the trigger.

Ain't that right, Stumpy McGillicuddy?

8 minutes ago, hukdonfoniks said:

I know the issue @bobeph would have is his plumpy sausage fingers unable to wrap around the trigger.

Ain't that right, Stumpy McGillicuddy?

Yeah, pretty much.  Ahole

26 minutes ago, paco said:

My aim

 

13 minutes ago, Bill said:

CoordinatedWellinformedAdouri-size_restr
 

Kinetic energy has nothing to do with the lethality of an AR15. Let’s have some fun.

An AR15 is chambered in 5.56x45mm. Generally you will find the round size in 55gr or 62gr. Both ammo types prefer a barrel with a twist of 1:12 to properly stabilize the round, however 62gr steel core penetrator rounds require a 1:9 or 1:7 twist because those rounds are longer, thus requiring more of a twist to stabilize. The 5.56x45mm is an intermediate cartridge, meaning it’s smaller than larger cartridges (7.62x51mm) you’d typically find in battle rifles (AR10, FAL, G3). Given that the intermediate round is smaller by nature and creates a smaller wound channel than the larger caliber rounds, the 5.56x45mm round needs to be traveling above a certain velocity threshold in order to be effective, which is generally about 2700fps at the point of impact. Does this velocity threshold have anything to do with kinetic energy? No, it does not. You see, the 5.56x45mm round is spitzer shaped, meaning it carries all of its mass in the back of the round and the front of the round has a defined tip. If the round hits tissue above the velocity threshold, the drag of the tissue causes the round to rapidly lose velocity. "But but but, that’s the kinetic energy transfer I was talking about!” No, it’s not. That kinetic energy transfer won’t kill you. You see, what happens to a spitzer shaped round traveling above a certain velocity that rapidly slows is that, because of physics, the center of mass of the round, which is in the rear, wants to be the forward edge of movement. This then causes the rear of the round to move forward, which then makes the round aerodynamically unstable, which causes the round to tumble end over end in the tissue, and the tumbling makes the round unstable and the copper jacket starts to separate from the usually lead core, which causes fragmentation. So, the lethality comes from, not the transfer of kinetic energy, but from the round destabilizing, which creates a larger wound channel, and the round fragmenting, which creates additional injuries in tissue.

Kinetic energy, in terms of ballistics, means nothing. What means everything is where on the body the round is going and how big of a wound channel the round makes. It’s amazing how little kinetic energy transfer there is in soft tissue when it comes to ballistics. To get to a point where kinetic energy is lethal, you’re getting into explosive territory. Like big bomb explosive territory. 
 

Also the volume of fire means nothing unless you’re hitting what you’re aiming at. Which is hard to do. The second deadliest mass shooting in America was done with Glock pistols. 

sigh.

all of that is nice information that does not practically challenge a damn thing I'm saying. kinetic energy is commonly used as a stand-in for the combination of mass + velocity that a round hits the target with. that's it.

yes, I realize that it is a an approximation. and that there are many other variables that contribute to lethality: did the projectile pass through soft tissue and not hit bone? did the projectile hit a major organ? was it a hollow point round? 

I was trying to not complicate the conversation by getting dragged into the nuances of how individual rounds may or may not react under different circumstances. because this is where "gun experts" try to dismiss "laymen" like myself because "we're ignorant".

so let's discuss this:

Quote

That kinetic energy transfer won’t kill you. You see, what happens to a spitzer shaped round traveling above a certain velocity that rapidly slows is that, because of physics, the center of mass of the round, which is in the rear, wants to be the forward edge of movement. This then causes the rear of the round to move forward, which then makes the round aerodynamically unstable, which causes the round to tumble end over end in the tissue, and the tumbling makes the round unstable and the copper jacket starts to separate from the usually lead core, which causes fragmentation.

wow. that basically says EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING. you keep saying "the kinetic energy means nothing!" then you go on to say that it's really the velocity (which is half of the calculation of kinetic energy - F = ma, with a in this case being negative acceleration of an object being "slowed down" by things like, I don't know, bones and organs) that can only come from a rifle (not a handgun) fragmenting upon sudden deceleration (hitting a body, especially a bone for example).  

the round "destabilizing" HAPPENS BECAUSE OF KINETIC ENERGY. it is literally the fact that the bullet size is relatively small but the velocity is so damn high that causes this "destablizing" effect that results in such tremendous damage.

"lethality has nothing to do with kinetic energy. no no. because you're just some emotional guy who doesn't know about guns. it's really about how the kinetic energy is converted into bond energy that results in fragmentation of the round spreading the damage to various critical organs at once! you dumb not-gun guy."

(I may not "know guns" like you, but I majored in mechanical engineering with an emphasis on materials engineering)

if we want to get into the lethality against humans of an AR-15 vs. a handgun, let's read a bit from the doctors who treated the wounds: https://gizmodo.com/doctors-want-you-to-know-how-much-damage-rifle-bullets-1823503094 

I mean, I know you probably know more about guns than these doctors. good on you. 

here's some more: https://www.wired.com/2016/06/ar-15-can-human-body/

then you say this:

Quote

Kinetic energy, in terms of ballistics, means nothing.

that is so incredibly wrong from a physics standpoint it boggles my mind. kinetic energy in this context is literally the measurement of how much energy a projectile has; it is a factor of 1. its velocity and 2. its mass. and those are the two primary factors of ballistics. of course the shape of the round matters. but its mass and velocity are the bulk of what matters in ballistics. and because an AR-15 round is relatively small but the velocity is so high, hitting what you're aiming for and hitting it at a velocity that causes "fragmentation" is enhanced. 

regarding the Glock, yes I'm aware it (and other handguns) are tied to the vast majority of deaths. however, despite the total numbers of deaths, it's worth noting that handguns are the most commonly owned gun. and despite being tied to more deaths, handgun wounds are much less commonly fatal than rifle wounds.

it's also not lost on me that handguns are the primary weapon owned for home protection in the United States. to me this is a much bigger gray area. Americans have a right to defend themselves and their home.

the difference with semi-autos like the AR-15 and handguns is the ability to dole out lethal force to multiple targets in a short period of time. if you want to start discussing Glocks vs AR-15s, I'd ask you this: which would you rather be shot with, if you were faced with the impossible choice?

1 hour ago, Dave Moss said:

You mean she’s an anti-LGBT activist, right? 

No, she has been an LGBT activist since she became famous (and possibly earlier, but I don't know what her political leanings were before becoming famous).  Her LGBT advocacy has lead to people on the right, such as evangelical Christians, being against the Harry Potter books.

Create an account or sign in to comment