Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

All Things Second Amendment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post


    You're the one with the problem.
    I didn't say you had a problem.

    I laughed at your one word answer to a block quote.

    I've heard of hearing things, but reading things?

    The hard of reading.

    Running around with loaded numbers like that is only going to get you hurt.
    Last edited by Town Heretic; July 12, 2019, 01:34 AM.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life






    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      I didn't say you had a problem.
      Is reading your second language? I am not the one abusing statistics and refusing guidance. Nobody has made any such claim.

      I laughed at your one word answer to a block quote.
      I know.

      I've heard of hearing things, but reading things?
      You should start with responding to what people say, not making things up to argue against.

      Suit yourself.
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Stripe View Post
        Is reading your second language?
        King of the internal non sequitur.

        Here's why I just get tickled with you:
        Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
        Of course this isn't about banning guns, but about banning those singularly distinguished by their ability to kill a great many people in a very small window of time. Everywhere that's done people are safer.
        Originally posted by Stripe View Post
        When you ban cars, the roads are safer.
        But when I write: When you ban assault rifles and the aids I'm speaking to, everyone is safer...
        Originally posted by Stripe View Post
        Nope.
        That's funny.

        I am not the one abusing statistics and refusing guidance.
        Who said you were?

        Nobody has made any such claim.
        You're the only one making any sort of claim along those lines about anyone.

        I know.
        Then let no man say you can't be taught anything.

        You should start with responding to what people say, not making things up to argue against.
        Seriously, you have to stop. Or I'm going to have to make sure I'm not drinking coffee when I read you.

        Suit yourself.
        That's the new motto at Men's Wearhouse.
        Last edited by Town Heretic; July 12, 2019, 06:42 AM.
        You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

        Pro-Life






        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post

          Kingoftheinternalnonsequitur.
          Here'swhyIjustgettickledwith
          you:ButwhenIwrite:Whenyouban
          assaultriflesandtheaidsI'msp
          eakingto,everyoneissafer...T
          hat'sfunny.Whosaidyouwere?Yo
          u'retheonlyonemakinganysorto
          fclaimalongthoselinesaboutan
          yone.:AMR:Thenletnomansayyou
          can'tbetaughtanthing.:thumb
          ::rotfl:Seriously,youhaveto
          stop.OrI'mgoingtohavetomake
          sureI'mnotdrinkingcofeewhen
          Ireadyou.That'sthenewmottoa
          tMen'sWearhouse.
          Great.

          Meanwhile, you have no idea how to respect an opposing view, let alone simple statistics.
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          E≈mc2
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
          -Bob B.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            Great.
            Thanks!

            Meanwhile, you have no idea how to respect an opposing view,
            I'm a moderator at another forum. When an opening came up there I nominated fool for the slot. His view on God is fundamentally opposed to my own. We can't agree on the point, but I respect his character and the quality of his thinking, even so.

            let alone simple statistics.
            I would agree that you have an uncommon grasp of simple statistics. True, I don't mean it as you would, but that's life for you.
            You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

            Pro-Life






            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
              I'm a moderator at another forum. When an opening came up there I nominated fool for the slot. His view on God is fundamentally opposed to my own. We can't agree on the point, but I respect his character and the quality of his thinking, even so.
              Blatant equivocation. It is irrelevant how you treat fellow human beings. The issue is that when presented with an opposing idea, you do not engage with it, preferring long-winded discussions over who said what and when, while weaving your assumptions into the discourse as if they were to be accepted without question.

              For example, you've been told plenty of times that "respect" has numerous definitions and which one I use in situations like this, but you ignore that and start spouting about an irrelevancy using language that shows you have spent no time considering my opinion.

              I would agree that you have an uncommon grasp of simple statistics.
              But you won't present specifics.

              Meanwhile, you have had specific errors you have made pointed out numerous times by multiple people.

              Also meanwhile, a potentially useful conversation gets buried.
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                Blatant equivocation.
                Gesundheit.

                It is irrelevant how you treat fellow human beings.
                That's a declaration wanting an argument. Here's a rebuttal with one. Not if you're demonstrating respect for people holding contrary positions. I don't know how it is in your country, or Canada, unless you're Canadian, but in mine if we're ill mannered in relation to and short on considering someone's point, we don't tend to form friendships apart from that effort. So respect between people tends to support the understanding that the people involved feel they are met respectfully, and given that meeting in a forum setting is entirely rhetorical, argumentative, and conversational, it makes a fairly solid case that your assumption, declared as more, is in fact a pile of horse hockey.

                The issue is that when presented with an opposing idea, you do not engage with it
                No, that wasn't your most immediate complaint. What you actually wrote and I quoted directly was, "Meanwhile, you have no idea how to respect an opposing view." I've noted that isn't the case at all in my remarks above. And I noted both the popular and less popular usage above.

                I weighted my remarks to the notion of regard because it was the only use that had anything like legs. The very post you block quoted that I proffered to another poster, the one you met with "Nope" was prima facie rebuttal to any attempt to use the idea of respect as consideration.

                preferring long-winded discussions over who said what and when, while weaving your assumptions into the discourse as if they were to be accepted without question
                That sentence could have been much shorter and less assumptive, supra.

                But you won't present specifics.
                All evidence to the contrary, as a perusal of my posts to people interested in actually engaging the point and spending time discussing it instead of me illustrates.

                Meanwhile, you have had specific errors you have made pointed out numerous times by multiple people.
                Not that you've quoted in support. I suspect you'll conflate what you assert with a lesser proffer, like when a couple of posters repeated the mistake made about cities and I pointed out, again, the fact that when the EC was created we were overwhelmingly agrarian and there was no reasonable or articulated fear relating to an imbalance favoring cities. That sort of thing.

                A few people without facts saying, "No," in the face of them isn't an indication of error...well, not as you focus it at any rate.

                Also meanwhile, a potentially useful conversation gets buried.
                Horsefeathers. And you don't give two figs about the conversation, which is why after I stepped around your nonsense to engage others you interjected this gem into the stream after a lengthy block quote to that other poster:

                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                Nope.
                You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                Pro-Life






                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  Gesundheit.
                  Nope.

                  That's a declaration wanting an argument.
                  Nope.

                  Here's a rebuttal with one.
                  Nope.

                  Not if you're demonstrating respect for people holding contrary positions.
                  Is reading your second language? It. Is. Irrelevant. How you treat people. I'm talking about how you treat opposing ideas. For instance, I say you're equivocating over respect for people and respect for ideas and you say they can be the same thing.

                  I don't know how it is in your country, or Canada, unless you're Canadian, but in mine if we're ill mannered in relation to and short on considering someone's point, we don't tend to form friendships apart from that effort. So respect between people tends to support the understanding that the people involved feel they are met respectfully, and given that meeting in a forum setting is entirely rhetorical, argumentative, and conversational, it makes a fairly solid case that your assumption, declared as more, is in fact a pile of horse hockey.
                  Nope.

                  I weighted my remarks to the notion of regard because it was the only use that had anything like legs. The very post you block quoted that I proffered to another poster, the one you met with "Nope" was prima facie rebuttal to any attempt to use the idea of respect as consideration.
                  Nope.

                  That sentence could have been much shorter and less assumptive, supra.
                  Nope.

                  All evidence to the contrary, as a perusal of my posts to people interested in actually engaging the point and spending time discussing it instead of me illustrates.
                  This thread was about something until your thin skin made it about you.

                  Not that you've quoted in support. I suspect you'll conflate what you assert with a lesser proffer, like when a couple of posters repeated the mistake made about cities and I pointed out, again, the fact that when the EC was created we were overwhelmingly agrarian and there was no reasonable or articulated fear relating to an imbalance favoring cities. That sort of thing.
                  Nope.

                  A few people without facts saying, "No," in the face of them isn't an indication of error...well, not as you focus it at any rate.
                  Nope.

                  Horsefeathers. And you don't give two figs about the conversation, which is why after I stepped around your nonsense to engage others you interjected this gem into the stream after a lengthy block quote to that other poster:
                  Nope.

                  I care a great deal about the conversation, which is why I've waded through your impenetrable diatribe to try and offer some clarity.

                  Learn to respect the conversation and admit the shortcomings of the statistics you present.

                  Pretty simple.
                  Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                  E≈mc2
                  "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                  "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                  -Bob B.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                    Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope.
                    See, when that's all you do there's no real point in doing it. It's indistinguishable from emoting.

                    It. Is. Irrelevant. How you treat people.
                    It depends on which meaning of respect you use. I spoke to both esteem and to consideration in my last.

                    I'm talking about how you treat opposing ideas.
                    By giving them consideration or do you mean having a foundational regard for any opinion however framed? I noted the former and even spoke to the latter, on the odd chance you were going there.


                    This thread was about something until your thin skin made it about you.
                    Actually, the thread was created by Idolater to pull a conversation he was having with me into a separated discussion. He quoted a good bit of our earlier bit as a set up and I responded in the second post. It went along, in starts and stops, covering some pretty interesting ground.

                    Then, without my having said a word to you:
                    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                    PUT THOSE STATISTICS DOWN BEFORE YOU HURT SOMEONE!!!!

                    How many times does this mean moron have to be shown a complete Muppet with simple numbers before he will stop throwing them?

                    ...Now, slow down. Put your Google away. Leave the stats to the grownups...
                    That's your thin skin, your interruption of an actual and ongoing discussion with insult and nonsense.


                    Learn to respect the conversation
                    Funniest post by you so far.
                    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                    Pro-Life






                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                      That's all you do.
                      Nope.

                      It depends on which meaning of respect you use. I spoke to both esteem and to consideration in my last.By giving them consideration or do you mean having a foundational regard for any opinion however framed? I noted the former and even spoke to the latter, on the odd chance you were going there.
                      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                      E≈mc2
                      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                      -Bob B.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        meanwhile, still unanswered:


                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                          meanwhile, still unanswered:
                          Yeah, that video picks from a single source to debunk a specific claim that is so common it's unbelievable how utterly wrong it is. Gun haters need to pull together multiple sources upon disconcordant axes to paint a picture they want. Statistics must be used wisely and kept to a minimum. Generally speaking, they are always malleable — dependent heavily on the narrative that is being shared and almost impossible to counter without great insight into how they were collected.

                          This is why when there is a long post full of great statistics-based claims, it's the agenda that is accessible and debatable, not the numbers. They are almost certainly irrelevant at best.
                          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                          E≈mc2
                          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                          -Bob B.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Let me know, Idol, if when or if you want to get back to it.
                            You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                            Pro-Life






                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                              Let me know, Idol, if when or if you want to get back to it.


                              Let us know when you're willing to engage sensibly.
                              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                              E≈mc2
                              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                              -Bob B.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                I can mostly only hear one side of the conversation, but it's hilariously funny.
                                This message is hidden because ...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X