The Ammosexual Conundrum and MAGA Schism.. Post #690522 • Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 12 Sep 2025, 10:17 am » wrote: ↑
12 Sep 2025, 10:17 am
It is a central tenet of 2nd Amendment Absurdism that firearms are the ultimate tool with which the citizen may temper a tyrannical government.

Given the technological asymmetry inherent in any such contest, we can't be talking about a Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Legion of a couple of hundred AR-15 toting yokels on a cannonball run to DC. It can only mean limited, and largely symbolic, acts of defiance.

Charlie Kirk was a MAGA proselityzer...MAGA isn't a coherent political or economic statement - it's a tantrum. As such it derives its popular legitimacy by triggering paranoia and hatred and stoking grievance.

Because it lacks readily identifiable foreign enemies, it has looked inward for the necessary bogeymen. Transgenders, Science, Immigrants, Liberals, Jews and legal professionals have all served the role. This has generated an abundance of aggrieved parties.

The problem arises whem MAGA is the Oppressive Government. For the Ammosexual reading of the 2nd Amendment to have any meaning they would have to stand with the shooter as a matter of Principle.

Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?

A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors

1. Your next move will be to claim that you answered it by giving your definition, to which I replied that isn't the question...etc...etc...blah...blah...blah...
2. You will also say that you answered through your non-answers.

Moron.

Deal: If Veghead can prove that he answered the survivorship multiple choice question, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back for as long as I live. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why.

Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...