This is like one of my favorite debates about religion. The idea being if a God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent how could he allow suffering? The argument is that free will is more important. So basically for everyone to be free, bad things must be allowed.
@A Math Dealer, I’ve actually pondered this when it comes to the gun debate. The freedom they provide kinda comes at a price...
“If we got rid of guns there would be fewer mass shootings”
“yes, I agree”
“So we should get rid of guns then”
@Snarfel Burger, please don't start a gun debate on here I was simply pointing out something I found interesting about a class I had. I didn't mean to offend, but to inform that the debate exists.
@A Math Dealer, I think you missed my point, I was agreeing with you
@Snarfel Burger, except that fewer shootings would absolutely not happen. There are 400 millionish firearms in the US. There is literally no way you can get rid of them, so instead you ban then from the law abiding citizens who make up 99.99% of the gun owning population. And then guess what, only criminals have guns and guess what? Mass shootings WILL still happen. It is a price to pay for freedom. Only two and a half centuries ago firearms were instrumental in this country becoming free of British rule. Did we forget so quickly that governments can and will be tyrannical given the opportunity? Free speech and the right bear arms are what keeps this country free. Banning either of these is a serious slippery slope to losing other rights.
Sorry for the long rant but I'm very passionate about keeping freedom and what it means.
@TheSecretSavage, reread what i wrote. It must have been worded wrong because people are reversing what I said. I AM PRO SECOND AMENDMENT! I was saying hypothetically, even if, somehow (even though its impossible) we got rid of all the guns in citizens hands, there WOULD probably be fewer mass shootings. But its not worth it BECAUSE of the freedom it would take away and the tyranny of government. I’m just saying gun crime might be the price we pay for freedom. But you’re preaching to the choir my man.
@A Math Dealer, there must be free agency for there to be a heaven and hell
@Snarfel Burger, actually there wouldn’t be less mass shootings. There would actually be more. As statistics indicate roughly 1 million crimes are stopped every year by an armed citizen and only roughly 400k crimes are committed with a gun each year. So taking away guns would just mean the people who don’t follow the law would have an easier time breaking it. Edit: sources: search FreedomToons on YouTube they have a video called debunkers vs g*n control nonsense that has the sources linked in the description. Edit 2: Also not harping on you just pointing out that the logic there is actually incorrect.
@Snarfel Burger, your dislikes are unwarranted, you are entirely correct
@ThatGuyx79, see, that’s why I said i’ve “pondered” the thought. I don’t have any facts to base that assumption on lol, it’s just a thought. I love my guns, but we do seem to have more mass shootings than some, even though I’m sure we do stop millions of violent crimes (I definitely believe that!) And by the way, I love FreedomToons! I appreciate you not harping, I’m actually on these peoples’ side lol.
@Medic135, thank you!
@A Math Dealer, essentially yes.
@TheSecretSavage, I love reading these lines of debate...
@ThatGuyx79, and these
@A Math Dealer, there's actually several instances of God breaking that rule. Though. Most notably with the Pharaoh.
@hollow114, well, no, he doesn't break the rules. Agency gives you frredom to act, not freedom to choose consequences. Pharoah brutally enslaved the Jews, and Moses was instructed to give Pharoah the option to let them go or suffer the wrath of God. After many obvious and increasingly severe consequences, he continued to refuse...if anything, God gave Pharoah more opportunities to choose than most.
@mras,gamergaters, most liberal college activists who are really not ready to talk politics
Good news, if someone says something you don’t like you can always say something they don’t...
@A Blunt Object, nobody likes a blunt object. Everyone wants objects you can stab people with.
@BigJohnson86, I’d retort back in kind, but I have my suspicions that everyone wants a big johnson...
*shoots her with musket
@ThePandaPool , pretty sure it’s dude, but not sure...
@HighJack2, not when I'm done with them.
Would love to know who downvoted this? I have a couple likely candidates
Edit: lol, one confirmed.
Remember kids. You have the freedom to say whatever you want and other people don't have the freedom to be offended. Because you're more important than other people.
Freedom of speech is protection from the government, not the public. You do not have the right to burst into an event, steal the mic, and rant about your political opinions on dwarves and washing machines. Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences, it just means that the government has to stfu and let you criticize them and assemble together to profess your grievances. The public even has the right to ignore you or silence you (by legal means, such as deactivating your twitter account). But the government cannot do that, and should never have the ability to do that. (There are exceptions for shutting down hate speech tho, but that’s such a tiny percentage of political messages it isn’t worth spending time on discussing)