Jump to content

Hystery

Members
  • Content count

    1,958
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Hystery last won the day on April 4 2016

Hystery had the most liked content!

About Hystery

  • Rank
    #MakeSearchbarGreatAgain
  • Birthday 07/09/1991

Profile Information

  • Country
    France
  • Location
    France
  • Interests
    GTA, LCPDFR
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

16,087 profile views
  1. Be Inspired.....

    Please note that I didn't say "all cops are corrupt, triggerhappy and careless". Nor did I say that the police was such. I didn't judge cops as a whole at all. I said that, because there are such individuals, in fair numbers at that, present within the police ranks, it's difficult, or even impossible for some people, to support the police as a whole and view the police as a whole as a good entity. There's a fine difference between supporting the "good" police officers, which are a majority I'm not denying that, and supporting the police as a whole, which also includes the "bad" cops with it.
  2. Be Inspired.....

    He does have a point. While I wouldn't be as resolute on the matter, it's difficult, even impossible to support either a government, or a huge entity as the police as a whole because of the many individuals in both, a fair bunch of them being corrupted or not doing their jobs like they should. Doesn't mean we can't support the ones actually doing great things for people though, but when it comes to actually support either a government or the police as a whole... Kinda difficult.
  3. Be Inspired.....

    There's a middle-ground between supporting police no matter what happens and being anti-police. That middle-ground being supporting officers actually doing their job properly and not supporting the ones being dicks, corrupted, abusive or triggerhappy. Finding this video bad or cringy doesn't mean someone is anti-police. It means this video isn't to their liking, for plenty of reasons. Like the overly present patriotism (which has nothing to do with the police profession to begin with, you can be a police officer without being patriotic), the overly cinematrographic look of the video (which makes it feel like every cop is a hero figthing hordes of antifas, outnumbered during riots), the weird message it conveys (like it's cool and badass to beat people up with a baton, considering how the shot was taken). I could continue on and on. I don't judge the profession, I judge the video, and this video is bad in my opinion. A much better video would have been to, like Hastings said, show officers in their everyday, working with the community for a better environment for everyone. That, would have been a good commercial.
  4. I'd say it highly depends on the intents behind the joke. Being in couple with a man, I don't mind gay jokes, as long as the intent behind it was indeed just to joke around, but it's hard to tell online, and many people use humor to hide their malicious intent to hurt or mock the concerned people. So yeah, if the intent is to just have a bit of fun without truly wanting to mock or belittle or hurt the concerned people, it's alright and I'm alright with it.
  5. And I'm not responsible for you not being clear enough on your stance. We can keep going like that for days. As for the rest, yes, I do feel safe knowing that no one has the right to own a gun designed to kill people. No need to put quotes on that, because that's exactly what a gun is. It's an object designed to fire a projectile at someone in order to injure them, possibly in a fatal way. Crazy that the "MUH GUNZ" people can't admit that fact. I'm not afraid of terrorists, and I don't need a gun to feel safer. Because we learned to live without them. And while we, on very extended periods of time, occasionally have one or two maniacs trying to kill people in the name of whatever they believe in, you, on the other hand, have psychos shooting crowds every few weeks or so. Sorry, but between one place where no one owns guns, but we don't have use for them, and another place where everyone can have guns and shootings happen so often, my choice is made, in the blink of an eye. I've not lost anything mate. The point of an argument is to exchange, not to win. And yes, there's been confusion, because some talk about mass shooters, some others talk about invaders, and in the thread of discussion, the things got mixed up, hence I cleared the two from my point of view. Nah, it's your right to fight it off. You've no right to take a life, whatever your state says. I mean, you quote God, isn't the church against abortion because it takes a life away or something? Because everyone has a right to live? You see, that's the issue. Most 'muricans who own guns or are favorable to guns don't value life as it is. It's just that thing you can take away if you feel like it has to. Except it's not. It's a life we're talking about. It's not something casual you can disregard with a shrug. If someone invades my home, I grab my baseball bat and shove it into their head to knock them out, and I won't be afraid of being shot while fighting off : because here, home robbers don't have guns. Convenient.
  6. Then explicitly state you don't plan on owning a gun or don't own a gun if you don't want people to assume you do by the way you defend the "MUH GUNZ" thing. It'd help people determine what is your stance in a clearer way. I still wouldn't want you as a neighbor still, I'm fine with friendly people who don't have the rights to own tools designed to kill people. Feels a lot safer. Nah, you didn't. I said that a criminal should be judged by competent people who know their job, you think I said "Let's see a judge to see if you can steal from me", which are to entirely different things. What are we talking about here, a home invader or a mass shooter? Because the two things got entwined there. Mass shooter here only to kill as many people as possible? Yes, they have to be taken out the quickest possible, and if they can't be taken alive, then there's only one issue left. A home invader that most likely is here only to rob you? A good dog and you're fine, no need for guns or to kill anyone for that, and you certainly don't have the right to make the call of if this invader has the right to live or die just because you think you do. That's not how a civilized society works. That's nice and all, but when someone is eager to go to war, when someone goes abroad to slaughter people with glee, they're bloodthirsty to me, and I don't want people like that fighting for me. This world is enough of a shithole already with all the damn violence all over the place, we don't need more people eager to unleash even more violence.
  7. And why, in your mind, taking out automatically equals to killing them in cold blood without a second thought? There's no alternative, like, ever? Yes, if someone attacked me, or my family, or my husband, I'd like them taken out. Possibly dead. But I wouldn't want to live in a country that allows me to, or helps me to do that because first, it opens the door to anarchy, and second, it's not up to us, citizens to know whether a man should have his life taken away or not, without any form of trial. That's the difference. I'm fine with normal men needed in order to protect my comfort, thank you very much. I don't need bloodthirsty psychopaths for that. Dude, the judiciary system isn't the one deciding of the laws and max or min sentences. The laws are made by the lawmakers. The judiciary system just works to apply them, they can't do more. If you want to not trust something, don't trust the lawmakers. You seem to have barely read what I said and, as a result, reply to something I've never said. Good job, good sir. Also, yes, an anti-individual mindset, what an atrocity. How can people be ANTI-INDIVIDUAL in a SOCIETY where we live in GROUPS, that's preposterous right? (I put the important words in capital letters and bolded so you don't miss the correlation between them this time) But don't worry, I personally wouldn't want you to move out of the US either. I wouldn't want a neighbor who'd be ready to shoot me dead would I just ask if I can borrow some sugar, just because he feels like a manly man with his guns and thinks he can be judge, jury and executioner all at once.
  8. No. I said that it's not up to civilians to know if their assaulter should die or not, but up to the judiciary system to decide whether or not he has to be punished for what he's done. Anyone going to war with glee has serious mental issues in my eyes. War isn't funny. Killing people isn't funny.
  9. I actually remember a veteran interviewed on US TV during some riots explaining that the army teaches to de-escalate situations rather than escalating them to have better relations with locals during operations. Guess that's not taught anymore.
  10. And obviously a soldier has a mind of steel. All those veterans coming back from war with PTSD must be wussies then.
  11. Unfortunately that's not up to you to decide that. The judiciary system exists for a reason.
  12. Nah, ain't twisted. The only thing I hear is "It wouldn't work because 'murica isn't the same". How can you know if you don't even try? That's how it works, you try things, if they work that's good, if they don't work then you revert back to how it was before. But hey, better cling to guns and not change a single thing, surely issues will be solved by themselves through some dark magic. Also, if you say that americans wouldn't march down their own neighborhoods, then you've nothing to fear from a government, since no one would follow it, so it invalids your 2nd Amendment altogether. Matter of logic.
  13. I'm pretty sure that looking out my window and not seeing any shooting in schools happening is pretty hard fact and not individual perspective. It's as if I was saying "Sun is rising" and you replied "That's individual perspective". No, it's not, it's just fact. Also, I never said outright ban. We don't have that here either. As for the "What’s the purpose of the 2nd Amendment if the government has assault rifles and we have blunderbusses?", I'll reply by "What's the purpose of the 2nd Amendment if the government has freakin' tanks and choppers and you got your glock or AR-15". If a government wanted to take over, they would, and it's not the random dude with his handgun or hunting rifle that would stop a whole batallion of trained soldiers with the lines of tanks and armored vehicles coming with it.
  14. I keep saying the same thing just like you keep the same thing. I've my facts (just have to look out my window to see that not having guns means less shooting and no matter the location it will be the same), you've your facts that apparently say american people would be too damn dumb to let go of their guns and prefer to flail their arms in the air screaming "MUH ROIGHTS, MUH GUNZ" like a magic incantation hoping it'll change anything. Each one their own.
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.