Should you boycott a bike brand if its parent company supports the NRA?

Beecho wrote:

Hello everyone. Must confess to being really confused. Should I, or should I not drink from a Camelbak bottle, chiefly on the basis of whether it's full of piss and what vintage said piss might be?

Many thanks.

Ok to drink from any camelbak bottle that hasn't spent the last 5 years in a van.

Just don't buy a new one.

Beecho wrote:

Hello everyone. Must confess to being really confused. Should I, or should I not drink from a Camelbak bottle, chiefly on the basis of whether it's full of piss and what vintage said piss might be?

Many thanks.

When the bonk strikes, even a well flattened & rotted hedgehog looks tasty. The same syndrome may occur on those very hot days in the wilds where wee shops selling tinned fattening juices are absent and the becks have all dried up.

Should you find yourself dehydrated to a certain dangerous degree, I recommend that you have a sook at the pi55-filled camelbottle as this is better than collapsing from severe dried-upness. If you are fortunate, the bottle will be a-one filled then cast from the window by Miss Gorgeous 2018, on her way in a 1981 BMC limo from a Butlins holiday camp in West Northumberland to another on the Cumbria coast, after too much babycham.

This consideration prompts me to enquire where others would draw the line, concerning the source of the liquid in such a bottle and it's potential as a thirst-quencher? Or, to put it the other way about, whose nether-liquid might tempt you to develop a severe thirst so as to satisfy a secret yen?

Cugel

Cugel wrote:

When the bonk strikes, even a well flattened & rotted hedgehog looks tasty. The same syndrome may occur on those very hot days in the wilds where wee shops selling tinned fattening juices are absent and the becks have all dried up.

Should you find yourself dehydrated to a certain dangerous degree, I recommend that you have a sook at the pi55-filled camelbottle as this is better than collapsing from severe dried-upness. If you are fortunate, the bottle will be a-one filled then cast from the window by Miss Gorgeous 2018, on her way in a 1981 BMC limo from a Butlins holiday camp in West Northumberland to another on the Cumbria coast, after too much babycham.

This consideration prompts me to enquire where others would draw the line, concerning the source of the liquid in such a bottle and it's potential as a thirst-quencher? Or, to put it the other way about, whose nether-liquid might tempt you to develop a severe thirst so as to satisfy a secret yen?

Cugel

Valbrona wrote:

What do the liberals who can't win arguments come up with?

No platforming and boycotts.

Pathetic.

 

hang on, a minute, wasn't it you earlier in the thread who raised the matter of the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses? Those damn liberal Nazis! Make your mind up! Still, at least they never no-platformed the opposition and were happy for free speech to remain unthreatened throughout their liberal administration.

Valbrona wrote:

What do the liberals who can't win arguments come up with?

No platforming and boycotts.

Pathetic.

 

What do thick cunts come up with? Bullshit.

Wankers.

If you could articulte your position, you'd get respect for, at least, articulating it. But you can't because you're a thick racist twat, and yes, you've had the opportunity to enter into dialogue but are too fucking thick to defend your position. Fuck off to the mods to complain about being called a thick racist prick.

I'm not sure why you'd want to support mass murder, but hey...

Valbrona wrote:

What do the liberals who can't win arguments come up with?

No platforming and boycotts.

Pathetic.

 

Says the poster who never even engages in anything resembling reasoned argument, yet alone ever wins one!

I await your proposal for how you are going to force people to buy things they don't want to buy. And your inevitably illogical argument for how that constitutes 'freedom'.

Valbrona wrote:

What do the liberals who can't win arguments come up with?

No platforming and boycotts.

Pathetic.

In the 1870s, Irish farmers faced an agricultural crisis that threatened to result in a repeat of the terrible famine and mass evictions of the 1840s. Anticipating financial ruin, they formed a Land League to campaign against the rent increases and evictions landlords were imposing as a result of the crisis. Retired British army captain Charles Boycott had the misfortune to be acting as an agent for an absentee landlord at the time, and when he tried to evict tenant farmers for refusing to pay their rent, he was ostracized by the League and community. His laborers and servants quit, and his crops began to rot. Boycott's fate was soon well known, and his name became a byword for that particular protest strategy.

Boycotting is a simple, effective strategy for protesting and especially useful where there is a big power imbalance. There's little benefit in arguing with the NRA as they pretty much exist just to enable gun companies to sell more guns. They don't respond to logic and unfortunately they have lots of money and use that to purchase politicians and thus thwart the democratic process.

It would seem that most people in the U.S. don't want teens to be able to get assault rifles (e.g. AR-15) and then go on a killing spree. However, the NRA act to prevent any restrictions on selling guns. As there is so much money flowing to an organisation that acts against people's interests, it makes perfect sense to try to stop some of that money flowing.

Now, I'm somewhat confused about your position on boycotts - whether or not they are effective or unfair in some way. Could you clarify what your position is?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Boycotting is a simple, effective strategy for protesting and especially useful where there is a big power imbalance. There's little benefit in arguing with the NRA as they pretty much exist just to enable gun companies to sell more guns. They don't respond to logic and unfortunately they have lots of money and use that to purchase politicians and thus thwart the democratic process.

Nooooooo, it's the boycotting and no-platforming that's undemocratic.... I mean, what harm can half of Congress being in the NRA's pay actually do?

Valbrona wrote:

The Nazi's boycotted Jewish businesses in just the same way that some people are suggesting people should boycott Vista Outdoor.

Boycotts are for nasty and hateful types.

the nra are the nazis 

they perpetuate a culture of fear-  they smile at tragedy

undermining a nation's right to live in peace and safety ,  spending big bucks to sway the politicans to their will.

guns kill- period

ban the guns- garenteed, the numbers of guns on the street will dwindle as fewer will be sold

America would be great !

Valbrona wrote:

The Nazi's boycotted Jewish businesses in just the same way that some people are suggesting people should boycott Vista Outdoor.

Boycotts are for nasty and hateful types.

You seem a bit confused. I was a commie the other week.

You can't even troll properly. Why don't you leave the internet for grown-ups?

And as for that apostrophe - when are you going to read that book, you semi-literate bellend? Last discussion we had we established that growing up on a council estate wasn't much of an excuse, given that plenty have and know how to use apostrophes.

You're just thick.

Valbrona wrote:

The Nazi's boycotted Jewish businesses in just the same way that some people are suggesting people should boycott Vista Outdoor.

Boycotts are for nasty and hateful types.

Do you understand the difference between hating someone because of what they do and hating someone because of what they are?

The Nazis' hate was motivated by the old divide and conquer tactic used by Hitler to gain power. It's a common trick - paint an outsider group (e.g. Mexicans) as being the cause of various social problems (e.g. they're taking our jobs). Then use fear and hate to get your followers to do whatever you want them to do.

My issue with the NRA is not that they manufacture arms (they don't), but that they are basically a lobby group that uses lots of money to influence the democratic process. Buying from Vista Outdoor is basically providing money so that the NRA can continue with their interference.

Now, if you are a huge fan of guns and people owning guns, then you might want to encourage the NRA and I don't have a problem with that, although I'd probably form an opinion about your lack of foresight and critical thinking abilities, but hey, that's just my opinion.

So, boycotting the NRA is not for "nasty and hateful types" (you sound like Gollum by the way), but for people who don't like to see people spreading hate and fear and shooting each other. The NRA want everyone to have a gun to protect themselves from the Mexicans/Jews/Blacks or whatever the hate topic of the week is - that's hate and fear right there.

Anyway, thanks for playing, but your trolling doesn't have anything of substance. Ideally you should learn some critical thinking tactics before posting such asinine rubbish.

Valbrona wrote:

The Nazi's boycotted Jewish businesses in just the same way that some people are suggesting people should boycott Vista Outdoor.

Boycotts are for nasty and hateful types.

summa cum laude from the NRA School of Logic and Moral Equivalence. Well done.

Valbrona wrote:

The Nazi's boycotted Jewish businesses in just the same way that some people are suggesting people should boycott Vista Outdoor.

Boycotts are for nasty and hateful types.

So, according to you, in order not to be a Nazi I have to be forced to go out and buy products I don't want, against my will? 

Gun manufacturers are not Jews in Nazi Germany.  Don't get too worried for them, nobody is going to be murdering them en masse.  That you can even imagine that suggests you are not all there.

The Nazis did a lot of things.  They also ranted a lot about Marxism and were very keen on 'taking back control' of their country. Any chance you'll change your own behaviour as a result?

(I'm still disinclined to join such a boycott, partly becasue I don't have any plans to buy any of these products anyway, but also because it's not really my business what Americans do to each other - it's their problem, and up to them what they do about it.)

Valbrona wrote:

The Nazi's boycotted Jewish businesses in just the same way that some people are suggesting people should boycott Vista Outdoor.

Boycotts are for nasty and hateful types.

Hitler had a mustache so everyone with a mustache is literally Hitler.

wellsprop wrote:

I'm not really sure what to think about this. As an engineer, I earn my money from (mostly) defence contracts - so it seems pointless/hypocritical for me to boycott a company that's owned by a company that supports a pro-rifle group. I'm certainly glad that we haven't got nutters running around with semi-auto rifles in the UK though!

Weapons manufacture is always going to be a morally ambiguous business to be involved with and when your paycheck relies on it, then it's a tough call to make.

The NRA however, exert a huge influence over U.S. politics with their lobbying/buying of senators. They obstruct attempts to sensibly discuss gun control and attempts at legislation even when it seems obvious that it would save lives. It appears that the NRA's main priority is to sell more guns.

If you dig into the NRA and their politics, it becomes a bit more worrisome: https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/09/27/23-reasons-why-nra-racist/218065

I don't see it as hypocritical to work for an arms manufacturer and also want gun ownership to be subject to constraints (e.g. not allow troubled teens to obtain assault rifles).