Duchess, why do you identify with that meme when it references the Second Amendment, rather than "assault weapons"?

Just trying to promote posting, rothschild. It won't be the last time I post something provocative in order to facilitate that.

(05-15-2023, 12:51 PM)Duchess Wrote: Just trying to promote posting, rothschild. It won't be the last time I post something provocative in order to facilitate that.

Gotcha.

(05-15-2023, 08:03 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: "Brave" wouldn't have been my choice in adjectives to describe the school-children.

And "Sacrifice" sounds like a religious practice . . . like prayer . . . and should be illegal (if not already) in federally funded schools.

What is the word you would use to describe the school children?

(05-15-2023, 11:50 PM)MirahM Wrote:

(05-15-2023, 08:03 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: "Brave" wouldn't have been my choice in adjectives to describe the school-children.

And "Sacrifice" sounds like a religious practice . . . like prayer . . . and should be illegal (if not already) in federally funded schools.

What is the word you would use to describe the school children?

I appreciated and enjoyed the sign for it's use of sarcasm and parody.   Black humor . . . or dark comedy.  It was nicely done.

It was a clever message and skillfully combined the (hero's) tradition "to put one's life on the line" to protect a right.  And "sacrifice" implies a personal choice.

It was, in my opinion, a clever and exceptional use of irony, to convey a message.  

Kids, willing to sacrifice and die to protect a right . . . like soldiers, willing to die in battle to protect "America and her values". 

That being said . . . 

Personally, I would use no adjective.  It is my history and habit to always avoid responding in a provocative manner.  I am a sheep.

On second thought . . . "terrified", "frightened" or "scared shitless"  come to mind . . . instead of "brave".

Maybe substitute "cowering, screaming, warm-meat targets" for the word "kids", too.

The real beauty of the sign is it conveyed every terrible image of a school shooting . . . without needing to resort to the obvious.

It really was nicely done.

Have any of you seen this?

I have seen this video.

I understand she is also staring in one to survive homeschooled, mass-shootings, too.

However, Covid lockdowns are far superior, to both, for protecting school-age children from mass shootings.

What does it say about people when they appeal to emotion rather than rationality?

(05-16-2023, 01:04 PM)rothschild Wrote: What does it say about people when they appeal to emotion rather than rationality?

Can you elaborate on what you're taking issue with? Is it the school kid's presentation?

(05-16-2023, 01:23 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(05-16-2023, 01:04 PM)rothschild Wrote: What does it say about people when they appeal to emotion rather than rationality?

Can you elaborate on what you're taking issue with? Is it the school kid's presentation?

I'm referencing the people who decided to produce the content. There's obviously an agenda to sway public opinion in support of a particular policy, and I find that repugnant because it's psychological manipulation. Appealing to emotion is arguably the most common of all logical fallacies.

(05-16-2023, 01:42 PM)rothschild Wrote:  There's obviously an agenda to sway public opinion in support of a particular policy

I saw a kid giving advice on how to stay safe in an active shooter situation.

(05-16-2023, 02:08 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(05-16-2023, 01:42 PM)rothschild Wrote:  There's obviously an agenda to sway public opinion in support of a particular policy

I saw a kid giving advice on how to stay safe in an active shooter situation.

I saw this, posted by the channel...

"A child’s most important lesson shouldn’t be how to survive. Support the S.42 Background Check Expansion Act and demand a real solution to gun violence."

I don't disagree with supporting the background check expansion act. Are you of the belief only one or the other can be supported? I ask because that's what it looks like to me given your reaction to the video.

(05-16-2023, 02:49 PM)Duchess Wrote: I don't disagree with supporting the background check expansion act. Are you of the belief only one or the other can be supported? I ask because that's what it looks like to me given your reaction to the video.

My experience in life is that everything happens for a reason. The reason for producing that content, and the fact that it employs logical fallacy, are all that I'm responding to.

(05-16-2023, 02:49 PM)Duchess Wrote: Are you of the belief only one or the other can be supported? 

Well . . . YES . . . if you think about it.

If you believe that the "new" expanded background check will eliminate school shootings, there is no need to teach school shooting survival.  New law solves problem.

If you support school shooting survival tactics, you understand there is no law that will prevent criminals from obeying the law and therefore, you must continue teaching the survival drills.  (As apparently, there are no other viable options to minimize the threat)  So, you now must admit that the new law will not protect the children . . . which makes supporting it . . . a feel-good exercise in "virtue signaling".  Shootings will continue.

What I find strange is; " Why is a child "teaching" school educators and staff?  Isn't that the responsibility of the teachers and staff to already have the knowledge and means on how to protect their students and keep them safe . . . from someone other than a kid?  "

Seriously . . . haven't they had professional training regarding school shootings . . . before this kid showed up?

Unbelievable and unconscionable!

Just saw on TV a bulletin on a“toddler” was shot by his “4 year old brother”! 
Fortunately the toddler will be ok. Unbelievable! 

(05-17-2023, 02:32 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: Well . . . YES . . . if you think about it.

I thought about it and I can handle supporting background checks and people being taught safety measures at school and in the workplace and I'll go even further and say I don't find this unbelievable nor unconscionable.

(05-17-2023, 05:19 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(05-17-2023, 02:32 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: Well . . . YES . . . if you think about it.

I don't find this unbelievable nor unconscionable.

I was referring to school staff and teachers NOT having prior training or knowledge of protecting students and keeping them safe during a mass shooting event . . . before the kid showed and "schooled" them.

You knew what I meant.

2A Greta, shame us to safety!

(05-17-2023, 09:38 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: You knew what I meant.

No, I didn't! I thought you were referring to a little kid giving active shooter advice to adults. C'mon, surely you know I wouldn't play word games with you of all people.