Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Why the sudden tip toeing? One side in this discussion is sure to be OD'd on Kool Aid.

Well I don't drink Kool aid so.....yeah.

How about everyone get together and share some energon! We can all over-energize and reminisce about the good old days on Seibertron, before the war. Then we can have a Transformers marathon and watch everything from G1 onward and argue about important stuff, you know, like which series had the best artwork and toys, and who likes what voice actor best! Come on fellas, can we do that and forget real life for a while?

So I'm going to try to stray from being extremely political here, (because I wouldn't want to alienate anyone with my beliefs, even though I have extremely strong ones) but I will touch on a couple of things:

I believe sex education should be mandatory in public schools.

Not quite as cut-and-dried as it might seem- in theory it's a great idea, but in practice it gets taught much too early.

No matter when you teach it to kids, even if that's as early as the upper primary/elementary grades, you're most likely NOT going to be the first entity to tell them about it, which is the issue. Misinformation spreads like wildfire, especially among children, and especially around a "taboo" topic.

Whether kids spread the wrong information intentionally or unintentionally, (I had both in Elem. And I'm sure you did, too. I had a kid whose parents taught him the children are concieved by the transfer of saliva during kissing, then I had a kid who would teach us all about conception, foul language, and rude hand gestures and what they all meant. I'd find out later that everything he said was 100% false.) it still does and will do damage. Doesn't matter what type of school it is, the neighborhood it's in, or the people that go to it, you will get this spread of rumors. In that regard, to me, there isn't a time that's "much too early" to stop this...*hem*..."fake news".

I don't believe that church marriages should be legally binding institutions of the state, and I don't believe that you have any right to tell two (or more!) consenting adults that they can't live together, raise kids together, or file taxes together.

Maybe because marriage, pretty much by definition, is a union between a man and a woman. Like, that's not me bashing gay or bi people, that's the actual, original definition.

So I have a genuine question with this one, then, Black Hat. If the ancient, original definition for say, riding in a carriage (something they've had for thousands and thousands of years), was that only white/European races could ride in a carriage, would you stand behind that definition?
If there was some ancient text that said "Carriages are to be explicitly used by white people and no one else. ", would you campaign for that to be upheld? Despite changing times?

It might look like a silly, broad analogy at first, but it's really not. You're letting this one group have a privilege because of an ancient definition, while denying it to another despite now, 2000 years later, other groups more than deserving the right to that privilege and to be happy.

This isn't to put any words in your mouth, just to put the concept of the Gay marriage struggle in different terms.



Alright, done with politics.

Bronzewolf wrote:

I don't believe that church marriages should be legally binding institutions of the state, and I don't believe that you have any right to tell two (or more!) consenting adults that they can't live together, raise kids together, or file taxes together.

Maybe because marriage, pretty much by definition, is a union between a man and a woman. Like, that's not me bashing gay or bi people, that's the actual, original definition.

So I have a genuine question with this one, then, Black Hat. If the ancient, original definition for say, riding in a carriage (something they've had for thousands and thousands of years), was that only white/European races could ride in a carriage, would you stand behind that definition?
If there was some ancient text that said "Carriages are to be explicitly used by white people and no one else. ", would you campaign for that to be upheld? Despite changing times?

It might look like a silly, broad analogy at first, but it's really not. You're letting this one group have a privilege because of an ancient definition, while denying it to another despite now, 2000 years later, other groups more than deserving the right to that privilege and to be happy.

But Black Hat wasn't speaking of a hypothetical definition. He was talking about an existing one. Old or not, marriage is still defined as a union between a man and a woman. I'm not against same-sex unions (I don't care about it one way or another) but the word 'marriage' by definition cannot be applied to a legal union between same-sex couples. Don't like it? Have the definition legally changed. Simple.

Rodimus Prime wrote:Old or not, marriage is still defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Not sure how it is over there, but here the big argument is that yes, it is defined as between a man and a woman, but that definition has stemmed from the Church.

And I'm a big advocate for Church being separate from State. So when we have a bunch of Politicians standing up and saying the cannot support same-sex marriage because that's what their religious beliefs have taught them, then their failing in their job to represent the people who elected them.

Hence why we've now wasted $150million on a postal vote that isn't even **** binding, because the Politicians are too **** gutless to make the call themselves.

EunuchRon wrote:How about everyone get together and share some energon! We can all over-energize and reminisce about the good old days on Seibertron, before the war. Then we can have a Transformers marathon and watch everything from G1 onward and argue about important stuff, you know, like which series had the best artwork and toys, and who likes what voice actor best! Come on fellas, can we do that and forget real life for a while?

Yeah im with ya bud.

Burn wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:Old or not, marriage is still defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Not sure how it is over there, but here the big argument is that yes, it is defined as between a man and a woman, but that definition has stemmed from the Church.

Exactly. That is why it's a debatable subject. And I didn't agree with it, mind you, because I believe everyone should have freedom to make choices that make them happy, as long as those choices don't harm others, physically or emotionally. But at the same time you'll never find me at a march or protest for gay rights, simply because as I said before, I don't care either way. I have enough problems in my own life, I can't take up for others'.

So I think the solution (other than people getting their heads out of the sand and joining the 21st century in allowing others to be happy) is to have a definition of 'marriage' that is A) different from that of the religious origin, signed into law by a governing body, or B) an amendment of the existing definition to include same-sex couples.

But as it is now, the only definition of 'marriage,' right or wrong, is "the union between a man and a woman," and therefore doesn't apply to same-sex couples. Unfortunate fact of life.

Chicago Tribune wrote:President Donald Trump declared that the shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, that left at least 26 people dead was not "a guns situation," saying instead he believed that "mental health" was the problem.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... story.html

U.S. Constitution wrote: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.

I understand the original purpose of the 2nd amendment, that is was more-or-less written as a way for American citizens to arm themselves in case of a need to war with our own government or foreign nations. I also understand that it was written at a time where America had just parted ways from Britain so the fear of an invading foreign power was a very real threat at that time and that the new Americans were wary of their new government. I also understand that the 2nd amendment was written at a time when guns of that period had poor range or accuracy and low rounds of ammunition (compared to the high-tech weapons of the 21st century).

I also get the "mental health" issue but in a country with almost 310 million people, I don't get why we continue to allow life as we know it to continue when our fellow American citizens are being slaughtered by fellow American citizens. Not by jihadists or terrorists or foreign invading armies ... nope, by fellow Americans. We are, perhaps, are own worst enemy.

How many of us Americans must die before something must change? I do not want myself or my family, friends and loved ones to become a statistic just so someone can have their precious gun. This is absurd!

I do not know what the answers are, but I certainly hope that a solution will be found. I thought for sure that Sandy Hook would have been the turning point, but man I was wrong. There has to be a MIDDLE ground somewhere that significantly changes the narrative here, helps protect us citizens from harm, yet still honors some 21st century version of the 2nd amendment. This ambiguous law/rule/amendment that went into effect back in 1791 is outdated, unrealistic, and very deadly 225+ years later. It needs to be modified or, at the very least, clarified, and some major things need to change.

Tired of seeing innocent people being mowed down by gun toting monsters.

Looks like some people are already tired of all the winning, lol. Gonna be a long 7 yrs for u guys Shall not be infringed. 2nd amendment argument over. They had very capable guns back then as well, "machine" guns even. Why doesnt anyone speak out about banning knives when someone stabs 20 people or trucks when they run over dozens? Because it would be stupid to blame the knives and trucks? Yes. Same as guns. Lots of times when government takes citizens guns, it leads to mass executions soon after. Germany, 7 mill dead, Turkey 1 mill mostly Christians, Soviet Union 50 mil dead, China 60 mill, and I could go on and on. That is the reason "they" want to take US citizens guns; control plain and simple.

Rodimus Prime wrote:But as it is now, the only definition of 'marriage,' right or wrong, is "the union between a man and a woman," and therefore doesn't apply to same-sex couples. Unfortunate fact of life.

Moonshot wrote:Looks like some people are already tired of all the winning, lol.

What "winning" are you talking about? I don't think I've seen any winning.

Moonshot wrote:Shall not be infringed. 2nd amendment argument over. They had very capable guns back then as well, "machine" guns even. Why doesnt anyone speak out about banning knives when someone stabs 20 people or trucks when they run over dozens? Because it would be stupid to blame the knives and trucks? Yes. Same as guns. Lots of times when government takes citizens guns, it leads to mass executions soon after. Germany, 7 mill dead, Turkey 1 mill mostly Christians, Soviet Union 50 mil dead, China 60 mill, and I could go on and on. That is the reason "they" want to take US citizens guns; control plain and simple.

So you're just dismissing my call for a happy medium and just gonna go with "this is just how it is? deal with it!" I didn't say ban all guns or take away everyone's guns. The idea of us being able to defend ourselves against our government or invading armies if needed is appealing. Can we have it both ways or is that the problem in and of itself? Something needs to change.

Moonshot wrote:Looks like some people are already tired of all the winning, lol. Gonna be a long 7 yrs for u guys Shall not be infringed. 2nd amendment argument over. They had very capable guns back then as well, "machine" guns even.

Ha! Please show me one piece of evidence showing that, in 1776, not only that they had machine guns, but they were readily available. Also, I think you're seriously overestimating the musket. Have you ever seen one of those things loaded and fired? Not exactly the most efficient/rapid firing thing to say the absolute least.


Good luck tring to injure 600 people in a couple minutes with that thing.

Why doesnt anyone speak out about banning knives when someone stabs 20 people or trucks when they run over dozens? Because it would be stupid to blame the knives and trucks?

Because there's no knife that automatically stabs someone/a group of people 100 times a minute without the stabber having to do anything.

Moonshot wrote:Shall not be infringed.

We've already accepted that there are limits to what "arms" citizens can bear. "Arms" such as tanks, fighter jets, explosives, etc. are not protected by the second amendment - so the line between what is and isn't protected is well established to be negotiable.

Moonshot wrote:2nd amendment argument over.

No... we can amend the constitution, the constitution itself says so:

"Article V (Article 5 - Mode of Amendment) - The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Moonshot wrote:They had very capable guns back then as well, "machine" guns even.

Yeah, describing guns in 1776 as 'very capable' only makes sense if you're living in a movie. Small arms were crap, and the Gatling Gun was a 170lb beast that required four men to operate, and didn't come around for several decades after the second amendment was passed.

Why doesnt anyone speak out about banning knives when someone stabs 20 people or trucks when they run over dozens? Because it would be stupid to blame the knives and trucks? Yes. Same as guns.

I get tired of hearing this argument EVERY time, but maybe if the response is put out there enough, it'll eventually sink in.

Outside of video games, stabbing 19 people is far more difficult than shooting 59, so 'mass-knifings' could never compare to mass-shootings. Guns are simply more effective than knifes - if that weren't the case, people wouldn't shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars for a firearm, and the Iroquois would still control the eastern seaboard.

As far as vehicles, we intensely regulate the design, sale, and licensing of cars and trucks because they are so dangerous. We already have cars with safety features that prevent drivers from hitting things (like people), even when they try to do so, and those features will doubtless become more common. Show me a Westworld-Style safety feature that makes it impossible to shoot a gun at a person, and I'll be more indulgent with respect to gun ownership.

Finally, my wife doesn't need a gun to get to work, and I don't need a gun to cut open a box. Vehicles and sharp-edged implements are essential tools in day-to-day life we cannot function without.

Guns are not.

Lots of times when government takes citizens guns, it leads to mass executions soon after. Germany, 7 mill dead, Turkey 1 mill mostly Christians, Soviet Union 50 mil dead, China 60 mill, and I could go on and on.

Lots of things precede mass executions, and mass executions don't always result from limiting access to firearms. Illusory correlation, and even if the correlation were valid, correlation does not prove causation. That said, this is part of the reason I want a constitutional amendment that applies to everyone, and *don't* support things like limited gun bans targeting specific groups of people.

You mentioned the millions who died in Germany, so Hitler box opened, right? Owing to a three-way division of the vote, Hitler was elected by the minority of German voters. His Third Reich actually rescinded gun control laws for certain groups, while selectively strengthening them for certain other groups.

Imagine if we had a boisterous demagogue, elected by a third of voters, who used his influence to take guns away from people who were 'mentally ill', lived in the wrong neighborhoods, or identified with the wrong religion, while easing access to guns for his swastika-waving authoritarian followers.

That would be horrifying.

That is the reason "they" want to take US citizens guns; control plain and simple.

[/quote]

I'll just post the links to where I've written about that before.

The Price of Freedom Has Become Tyranny

Dear Second Amendment Defender: Don't Sound Stupid

It's Monday, I'm bored; let's do this.

Black Hat wrote:Trump may be a blowhard, but there are worse things to be. And if we're talking "Stupid things politicians have said" how about Hillary ranting that her supporters weren't working hard enough, and that anyone who opposed her was a "Deplorable"?

1. Trump is not just a blowhard. He makes everything about himself while bucking all blame and responsibility. He does not understand the government, the military, or international relations, and has no desire to learn. Containment is a strategy administrations apply to hostile foreign powers - administrations should not have to contain the President for the safety and security of the homeland. It is not normal, and it is indicative of serious danger and dysfunction.

2. Just like your comics comment, you clearly haven't actually read the deplorables text. Why don't you take a look, come back, and tell me exactly what was wrong with it, outside of being indelicate.

3. If your best defense of Trump is that he is not Hillary - the person who lost the election - then said defense does not exist. If you can't defend the man on his own merits, you've already lost the argument.

Black Hat wrote:Politicians are, with very few exceptions, colossal douchebags. White, black, man, woman, whatever- they're all liars and cheats.

Politicians are ambitious people, who, by and large, are trying to make their home and country better. Corruption happens. But to project bad faith on the entire political class is to say that government, by definition, does not work. That blithe observation requires further justification.

Black Hat wrote:There's also the fact they have a hero named "Black Panther" (yes I am aware he's been around for a while, but that doesn't really help Marvel's case much) which is pretty much the black equivalent of calling a superhero "Klansman".

Equating a black movement meant to empower a historically oppressed group with a white movement that not only empowers the black group's historical oppressors, but considers blacks racially inferior, skirts (or even crosses into) racism and white supremacism. Watch yourself.

It's still Monday, I'm still bored; let's keep going.

fenrir72 wrote:WTFrack? When I previously posted about the economic policies of the previous administration affecting our purchasing habits (rising fuel prices, global warming plastics etc) I got my head bitten off yet it seems like it's open season against PotUS Trump!

As for the so called dossier, cheetos etcs, it was commissioned by the DNC courtesy of HRC with Russkie assistance. Let's not get going on what HRC and Bubba have been up to (cheated Bernie in the DNC Convention)

So the moral is, what's good for the goose is also for the gander. Both sides are equally despicable, only the liberal side is mucho worst 'cause, well they got the LSM to cover for them via selective reporting!Don't forget how Tipper Gore and Lieberman wanted to go censoring evil rap songs and violent videogames! I'd have expected that from the Cons. Don't get me going with that SanFran Senator Lee Land Yee, a Democrat antigun nutjob convicted for selling guns to terrorists!

Cons are just as despicable what with feigning morality and all and the Press rakes them over the coals to no end. That's good but when they start favoring a side by selectively reporting, well, you know that someone sold out their principles!

fenrir72 wrote:Snopes as the get to all your info unbiased source? I'd rather not to go through that route. As a medical researcher, a single sourced well of information is just not what you do when you form your review of related literature as a foundation for a research proposal.

Anything created by man is sure to have subconscious biases.

As for the never ending bile and hatred against the PotUS, he still got 3 years and if he plays his cards right, another 4 years. Want to stop it? Well the DNC need to get their act together and sell the voters (especially the rust belt) a much better plan of improving their lot in life. Go out and vote and not the whiny Antifa route of protest and destroy!

Ever wonder why the guy won in the first place? Despite being (according to the LSM) worst/despicable/misogynist/racist candidate of them all? HRC was even worst! Or are you anti PotUs crowd not aware of the stunt she pulled against Bernie? Courtesy of the ex Head of the DNC Donna Brazile.If the best DNC candidate was fielded against him, maybe y'all would have been happy. But HRC rigged the DNC primary and you get...........what?, Unicron/the Fallen/Megatron or Donaldus Trumpimus Prime!

Hating the PotUS ain't gonna get you anywhere . Just go about doing your job, collect TFs! If the world economy improves, we'll be feeling it. If the World Peace and order improves, will be feeling it (no thanks to the previous Nobel Peace Prize winner , just ask the Iraqi's, Syrians and Libyans).

If not, then vote the guy out. Simplicity as drawing the earths heat from the green crystal thingie in the Arctic circle.

1. On the Media - what has been under-reported? What justifies your disparaging comments? Saying there's a bias, which will necessarily exist in all things, isn't enough to dismiss the Fourth Estate. For example, for all of the Right's belly aching about Harvey Weinstein (despite Fox's huge sexual harassment problem), it was the New York Times, a stalwart of traditional media, that broke the story. As commentators have observed, there's nothing on the Right that can replace the integrity or investigative power of our current, traditional press.

2. No one is saying the DNC doesn't need to clean up their act. But there's a difference between the DNC funding opposition research, and inviting a hostile foreign power to meddle in our elections. The Steele Dossier (and Uranium One) is simply a distraction from Mueller's Russia investigation. Also, Gore has been out of politics for 18 years. What makes you think this is relevant in the age of Trump?

3. Voting is half the battle. Resisting unconstitutional orders, discriminatory mandates, and Nazi supporters are another. Far beyond voting, people need to be alert to ensure their country remains a free, fair, and prosperous for all - not just for Trump and his base.

megatronus wrote: ... wrote a bunch of stuff because it was Monday and he was bored ...

and of course ...

I don't like that he is using "mental health" as an excuse. That's bullshit.

Yes, the guy had mental health issues, but did those issues allow him access to those guns?

And even if gun laws were to be tightened, to ensure people with "mental health issues" can't get access to guns, what happens when someone has a bad day? What happens if a person loses their job? What happens if they have a stressful situation at home? What's stopping someone who simply has a bad day from snapping and going off?

Caelus wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:But as it is now, the only definition of 'marriage,' right or wrong, is "the union between a man and a woman," and therefore doesn't apply to same-sex couples. Unfortunate fact of life.

Marriage 1 - Oxford.jpg

Marriage 2 - Merriam Webster.jpg

Marriage 3 - dictionary com.png

See, this is what I'm talking about. According to these, homosexuals should be allowed to get married, and unless the Supreme Court order has been reversed, they are. So if the accepted definition allows it, as well as the highest judicial level decrees it, what's the problem?

I understand that it's not that simple, but it should be. Why can't couples of the same sex be treated the same as couples of the opposite sex? Because some book or rule written like 2000 years ago says it?

Rodimus Prime wrote:I understand that it's not that simple, but it should be. Why can't couples of the same sex be treated the same as couples of the opposite sex? Because some book or rule written like 2000 years ago says it?

That's basically the argument I'm making about the 2nd amendment as well. If we can adjust the definition of marriage to be fair to all people, can't we adjust the 2nd amendment to be fair to all people so that we don't get mowed down by someone who's having a bad day?

I'll take my chances with vehicles being misused and someone who wants to go on a stabbing spree over someone trying to kill a group of people with guns.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Caelus wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:But as it is now, the only definition of 'marriage,' right or wrong, is "the union between a man and a woman," and therefore doesn't apply to same-sex couples. Unfortunate fact of life.

Marriage 1 - Oxford.jpg

Marriage 2 - Merriam Webster.jpg

Marriage 3 - dictionary com.png

See, this is what I'm talking about. According to these, homosexuals should be allowed to get married, and unless the Supreme Court order has been reversed, they are. So if the accepted definition allows it, as well as the highest judicial level decrees it, what's the problem?

It remains an issue for a couple of reasons.

The first problem is that a determined minority of Americans are still opposed to it, some spitefully so, with a disproportionately large portion of American politicians pandering to them with a variety of anti-LGBT policies. Just calling back to things I've written about since moving to Tennessee, people on the Right have supported granting mental health professionals the right to deny services to individuals if it conflicts with their religious beliefs (I wrote about it in more detail here); banning transgender individuals from using public restrooms that conform to their gender (More here); and formally rejecting the SCOTUS ruling (more here). That doesn't even go into the issue of whether businesses can deny services to people in or seeking same-sex marriages, whether employers can discriminate against them, whether insurance companies have to recognize them, and whether an elected official can order her office to withhold marriage licenses from gay couples because she is personally opposed to the SCOTUS decision.

The second problem is that the SCOTUS ruling was crap. Don't get me wrong - I was thrilled that my gay friends could finally get married, and have their marriages recognized in every state, but that is not how I wanted to 'win' and unfortunately, it really does matter how it happens. Really, the argument against legal recognition of same-sex marriage is frail to the point of being nearly indefensible, and it has been steadily losing support for years now. In the end, all the cards were on the side of marriage equality, but instead of getting strong legislation out of congress defining marriage and the legal rights associated with it, we got a SCOTUS ruling based on weak reasoning and inspired by a weakly presented case; the final statement from the majority decision was loaded with perfumed romantic bull-crap, saccharin to the point of causing legal diabetes. Unfortunately, easy-come, easy-go, and even though SCOTUS ruled in favor of same-sex marriage then, I think a lot of people are anxious about what will happen once Ginsberg leaves the bench.

Super Megatron wrote:Trump is Optimus Prime and they should had colored him in red, white, and blue instead.

This..

Ugh... I don't like jumpin' in the politics, but Seibertron... you live in Chicago, right? How many homicides you got there this year? How strict are the gun laws there? My ma keeps a loaded .38 special handy because she's 74, has medical probs, and is an easy target for a thug lookin' for an easy score. I got some of those "evil" guns everyone wants to ban but I ain't hurt nobody ever. I can't join the service 'cause of my own medical probs, but I wanna protect my home and my neighbors if sh!t goes south. That guy that shot up the church got stopped by a local with a rifle. You forget that? Not a cop, not a soldier, but Joe American in the right place at the right time. Banning guns wouldn't stop a killer. Hell, he coulda firebombed the church or drove a truck through it like that dude in NY did on the bike path. Ain't nothin' really gonna change until people stop wantin' to hurt other people. Until that happens people got to be able to protect themselves, and I ain't gonna give up nothin' I think will help keep me, my family, or my country safe. No way no how and I shouldn't be punished for what some nutjob does. Gonna ban my car next because someone drove into a crowd of Antifa? Where does it end? It don't, because PEOPLE kill people. That's already illegal everywhere, and people still do it.

Oh, and anyone wanna argue the 2nd amendment, how much has it been scrutinized, and limited by cities and states, etc? No other amendment gets disected like it. First amendment gets all sorta protections, like putting a crucifix in a jar of pee upside down and calling it art. Wanna do that 2nd one in Chicago or DC? Good luck.

@skywarp- 2 Dude you saying that could Start another Seibertron war, lol! But still see why you would agree, and I wouldn't say no to it.

EunuchRon wrote: That guy that shot up the church got stopped by a local with a rifle. You forget that? Not a cop, not a soldier, but Joe American in the right place at the right time. Banning guns wouldn't stop a killer. Hell, he coulda firebombed the church or drove a truck through it like that dude in NY did on the bike path.

As a counterpoint, the shooter at the Colorado Wal-Mart who killed 3 people got a 6 Hour head start before cops even publicly ID'd him because so many other people in the store pulled out guns when they first heard shots. No one actually did anything, other than slowing the investigation, and didn't save anyone. Luckily he just went back to his home a town over, but he could have been in another country by then.