If only anyone in the Navy had a gun...Follow

Smash was barking up the wrong tree. Looking at the wrong side of the equation.

Nope.

Still can't get to the part the 8 year old understood? Amazing. Either she's smarter than you or she didn't start from a preconceived ideology that made her willing to make obvious logical and factual errors to try to shore up a bankrupt opinion.

Genuinely not sure which would be true. It's sort of sad no one taught you critical thinking skills somewhere along the way from your birth to now. Oh well, it's probably not too late if you try.

That's some irony for ya. You get that this is exactly what you're doing right? Starting with your conclusion and twisting around any data that comes your way to make it fit.

That's some irony for ya. You get that this is exactly what you're doing right? Starting with your conclusion and twisting around any data that comes your way to make it fit.

This **** doesn't work past 5th grade, just FYI. I'm not sure what your peer group is, maybe it involves playgrounds, but this sort of argument would alienate pretty much anyone I know. It's boring, and painfully false. I don't know what my positions are until I look at the data. I know what I want to work out as true, and sometimes it does, but sometimes it doesn't.

I love guns. Seriously. I love to shoot, I like the mechanical complexity of certain models, I like the satisfaction of putting lead downrange for fun...shooting up an old car with sub machine guns say. Love it. It'd be great for me if people owning lots of guns didn't end up with more dead people, but it does. Part of being a fucking grown up is realizing that everyone else isn't a mirror image of you and that for the good of other people you sacrificing some things you enjoy is an acceptable outcome. I'd pay triple the taxes I do now if it meant a broad middle class and less poverty, even though it would mean less for me.

It would be FAR FAR EASIER to just pretend everything I want is the best thing for everyone and make **** up to fit that profile. I don't do that, however, because I'm no longer 14 years old. When is that time going to come for you?

And yet, you're the one who made that sort of argument. All I did was point it back at you. Forgive me if I almost fall out of my chair laughing when someone accuses me of doing exactly what he's been doing for the last 8 or 10 posts. Bonus points for them saying "That's such a lame argument", when I point this out to them.



I'm not sure why you're talking about positions. I'm not even talking about a position on gun control. All I was saying was that there's no significance to the correlation you made regarding a 100% overlap between contractors who commit mass shootings and contractors who own guns.


That it. I have no other motivation other than to point out that your correlation was pointless (just as pointless as the correlation between mass shooters and food eaters in fact). You're free to hold whatever position you want on an issue Smash, but when I see someone use ridiculously fallacious logic to try to influence the perception of something (as you did), I'm going to point it out.

Your problem isn't with your positions, Smash. It's with the absolutely mind numbingly absurd "arguments" you use to support them. Hell. I don't think you even made a position clear on gun control in this thread. You rarely do (take a direct and clear position). You rely instead of tossing out information and correlations clearly designed to influence someone's opinion on an issue, but without actually making a real argument. You didn't say "because of this correlation we should find that gun ownership leads to mass shootings, thus we should <so something> about gun ownership". You just stated the correlation knowing that most people would follow the assumed argument. That way you don't have to actually make an argument and defend it.


It's not like I haven't observed your posting style for like a decade now Smash. And one thing I've learned is not to argue against the position I (and everyone else) assumes you're taking (because you aren't technically taking one), but to just point out every time you make a correlation or other statement that is factually or logically false. What's fun about this is that when I don't fall into the "argue against what I assume he's saying, only to have him change later" game, you fall right into it yourself. Note, that even though neither your nor I directly made any statement regarding gun control in our interaction, you still assumed I was arguing a position about gun control.

I'm not. I'm just pointing out the worthlessness of what you said, so that no one makes the mistake of thinking it matters. Now, if you want to actually take a position and then defend it, you're free to do so.




This is you not making an argument btw while still attempting to influence people's opinions on an issue. See how you do this all the time? Your "arguments" more or less consist of a string of statements like this and nothing else.

Edited, Sep 19th 2013 6:58pm by gbaji

Nerd.

Gbaji;

1) How crazy must a person be for you to think they shouldn't be able to own guns? Be specific.

2) After setting the bar, how would you go about assuring that no one that crazy was able to own guns?

And yet the government still allowed you to have pistols and rapiers. See? This is the problem.

/steals lolgaxe's pic and brings a Sword Gun to the sword & gun fight.

And yet the government still allowed you to have pistols and rapiers. See? This is the problem.

While I was fibbing and didn't draw either, I do actually own both a pistol and a rapier, although I have to say, I'm rarely walking around wearing both.

You should stick with the sword. Less practical, but certainly more impressive looking.

Uh, you can own an armed drone today. There are fairly heavy restrictions and the ones on the market aren't great weapons platforms.