Checkmate him to death. .. Ironic Flash would say something about imprisoning someone for speeding.
Click to expand

Checkmate him to death

  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 38910
Favorited: 130
Submitted: 08/29/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to worldatarms submit to reddit


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #21 - jellybob (08/29/2014) [+] (9 replies)
Ironic Flash would say something about imprisoning someone for speeding.
User avatar #4 - angelious ONLINE (08/29/2014) [+] (13 replies)
i love it how dc just makes strawmen out of some of their characters to shoehorn their ideals down the readers throat....

not saying i am for gun laws...just painfull seeing some of my favourite comic book characters act out of character like this....
#14 - lilnuggetbob (08/29/2014) [+] (26 replies)
Gonna be dumpin pro-gun pics cause i can.
#58 - Brass ONLINE (08/30/2014) [+] (16 replies)
Sometimes I forget that the Flash/Wally is actually very intelligent because I was brought up on the Cartoon Network's Justice League/Justice League Unlimited that portray Wally West as a goof with a heart of gold.
#65 to #58 - thedasher (08/30/2014) [-]
To be fair it's hard to be stupid when you've got entire centuries to think of a response to something
#3 - anonymous (08/29/2014) [+] (20 replies)
ya see the thing is superman didn't talk recycling, speeding or smoking. he was talking about guns.
#10 to #8 - agentmoleman (08/29/2014) [-]
Owl it..
Owl it..
#1 - puzekatt (08/29/2014) [+] (1 reply)
in the end most people will live til they die of old age in a 			******		 and uninspiring world   
hold up are these good guys
in the end most people will live til they die of old age in a ****** and uninspiring world
hold up are these good guys
#13 to #1 - omegafriend (08/29/2014) [-]
flash is pointing out they shouldnt do these things bc its nonsensical
User avatar #45 - pokimone (08/30/2014) [+] (6 replies)
Flash you plebeian, you're supposed to say check first. Don't be an asshole. You need to tell him he's in check.
User avatar #120 - psykobear (08/30/2014) [+] (6 replies)
Flash is fast physically. I don't know if he would have the mental speed to win that fast. Same goes for Superman.
#127 to #120 - sickboi (08/30/2014) [-]
here's how
User avatar #89 - blare (08/30/2014) [+] (6 replies)
Except what the flash is implying is a slippery slope argument, which is a completely irrelevant and retarded logical fallacy. What he is implying that if we do A, it will eventually lead to Z. Gun Control doesn't pertain to ******* recycling. You do A(gun control) then B(ban cigarettes) then c(Imprison speeders) then d(lock up unchained dog owners) then finally all the way to killing non-recyclers (z). It is a stupid logical fallacy. Not to mention it's also an appeal to fear, correlation causes causation, etc.

In short, this is flawed logic and anyone who is worshiping this with the whole "muh gunz" is a ******* retard.
User avatar #96 to #89 - Lainge (08/30/2014) [-]
Except you're wrong though.
It's not about "gun control" it's about the heroes being in charge of gun control etc.
And it's proven that when they start **** like this they go overboard.
Like when superman kills lex and they start lobotomizing everyone who does anything "wrong".
Like yelling.
What Flash is saying is, and Flash is the voice of reason that stopped superman killing lex and prevented that whole world line, that the JL shouldn't be in charge of that **** , that **** is up to the people. They don't get to decide what is best for us.
User avatar #28 - ompalomper (08/29/2014) [+] (4 replies)
man, i really hated the story of injustice.

it is just the pure manifestation of how bad superman is as a character.
#88 - anonymous (08/30/2014) [+] (2 replies)

No we won't, Flash. I get that when you're moving that fast, every slope seems slippery, but some of us live in the real world. What's to stop us from "killing anyone who doesn't recycle"?

The same thing that stops us from doing it now: considerations of public policy.
User avatar #90 to #88 - ChuckNorrisVsMRT ONLINE (08/30/2014) [-]
It has nothing to do with slippery slopes or him seeing things moving faster or whatever. It's to do with where do you draw the line once you start taking away peoples rights. The point of rights is that they can't be taken away.
#51 - kresskh (08/30/2014) [-]
I don't think it's about gun laws. Superman wanted to get rid of guns globally, absolutely, from the biggest gun manufacturer to the smallest child soldier. He wanted to subdue humanity, as an alternative to limit wars.
And it's not out of character to the least. The Injustice Superman wanted to police the whole Earth, tighter than ever. Read the comics for more
User avatar #113 - tittylovin (08/30/2014) [-]
Slippery slope argument.
That being said, I ******* love guns.
#107 - sympathyforme (08/30/2014) [+] (4 replies)
So you can't even read a superhero comic book these days without the shagging thing trying to get political on you.

As a non-American who doesn't care but who has seen this argument so many times, I think both pro-gun and anti-gun people make valid points. You should at least be able to understand why the other side wants what they want without blindly following your own belief and raging on them instead.
#102 - anonymous (08/30/2014) [+] (5 replies)
I wish guns were never invented. So we could focus on cooler things, like sword fighting, and how to kill a man with one punch.
#105 to #102 - Schwarzenegger (08/30/2014) [-]
Keep wishing.
#124 - noplaceperson (08/30/2014) [+] (5 replies)
its not really the same thing in that you're not killing other people by smoking
#126 to #124 - sickboi (08/30/2014) [-]
what is second hand smokiing?
#112 - LocoJoe (08/30/2014) [-]
This is why I read Punisher. He's got the right idea.
#110 - atruepatriot (08/30/2014) [-]

#55 - Keavy (08/30/2014) [+] (10 replies)
Slippery slope arguments always annoy me.

"You want to get rid of guns? What's next, kill anyone who doesn't recycle?!?"
"Birth-control for teenagers? What's next, vaginas with attachable nooses?!?"
"Legalize marijuana? What's next, paying a methhead to steal my car?!?
#71 to #64 - ataeru (08/30/2014) [-]
First, read some of the info graphics below your post, they include statistics and sources that show how insignificant gun deaths are, and how # of guns and gun homicides are actually an inverse correlation. Cause i'm too lazy to do my own research when you won't even be here in a few hours

Second, removing guns entirely will remove gun crimes. But many more normal everyday items and events will still cause much more deaths than guns ever could.

Third, if guns were removed, then we would just go back to crossbows, swords, and other weapons to defend our selves from assholes from being assholes like they always have been and always will be. You can't subdue human unpredictability, but you can prevent it by any means necessary. With those necessary means, homicide crimes actually go down.

Fourth, It's fine that you don't like slippery slopes, but it just doesn't apply to this comic. What he saying is basically, "These things cause more deaths than a gun ever does, your solution to remove all guns to prevent deaths is flawed". You have to pay attention to context, dude.
User avatar #67 - ryderjbudde (08/30/2014) [+] (7 replies)
I don't know why people look at smokers like they are doing something immoral.

I understand that they are choosing to harm themselves, but it's more complicated than that. Some smokers were tricked into smoking, some smokers doubt the severity of cigarettes. But even if they knowingly are killing themselves, how does the immorality fall on their shoulders? Why do people bash smokers more than the cigarette manufacturers?

I mean, cigarettes are highly addictive AND poisonous. They are deliberately addictive for obvious reasons, and it's hard to argue that cigarettes aren't also deliberately poisonous. You're telling me DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane a widely used pesticide was put in tobacco for flavor? Regardless of the reason, why is it illegal for minors to smoke, but not for manufacturers to make them as poisonous as possible? Why do we ridicule irresponsible and short-sighted people and not the corporations that are taking advantage of them? Why does the Truth campaign antagonize smokers more than big tobacco?

I understand that corporations are protected by the constitution, but in the very introduction of The Declaration of Independence it says that one of the purposes of the United States government is to promote the general welfare.

In the 1920's lead additives were used in gasoline to prevent engine knocking. The additive served its purpose but had an unintended, but admittedly hard to miss side affect. It raised lead toxicity levels in the general population that had a recorded, direct effect on the population's IQ levels, and the additives were swiftly banned, the scientist who proposed the idea barely escaping criminal charges.

We didn't ridicule people for using the gas while protecting those distributing it, we just banned the additives then and there. Not sure why we treat cigarette additives differently.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)