posted
It's nice of you to talk for Lyrhawn and Blackblade, but if it's the same to you I'll wait for them to speak for themselves and confirm this hypothesis. If they do, then of course I'll have been wrong in interpreting their comments. I won't have been wrong about you being woefully ignorant about the plight of gay people.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Oh, so he didn't mean Latinos?
They're really hitting across a lot of demographics.
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I'm pretty sure he meant all Orlandoans are pedophiles.
Just checking in here guys...are you ribbing me as Heisenberg is suggesting?
I -highly- doubt it, simply considering who is talking...half of the nicest people on the board (the other half is PapaMoose and CT and BobS).
I thought you were joking-a strange and somewhat tasteless joke, but a joke-at first. It really didn't occur to me that someone might not know, nearly a week later, that the attack had been on a gay nightclub. So I suspect they thought you were joking too, and played along. I would be stunned if at any point after the attack was publicized that they didn't know it had happened at a gay nightclub, or that they thought you didn't know either.
Admittedly I did forget at that time your deliberate avoidance of facts and insight into politics and current events-an avoidance you've admitted with some pride in the past, which is why I thought you had to be joking. I can't deny that that choice of willful ignorance is baffling to me and nothing to be proud of, in my opinion, but you have said it and I should have remembered. This time you copped to it, so good on you I guess?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't that I "deliberately avoid facts and insights"...it's...I don't trust the talking heads and use my friends, family & you all to keep me informed of IMPORTANT matters & filter out the noise.
I just don't enjoy broadcast news. Nor have time to, really
If you thought I was joking why did you respond appropriately?
I was mixed up that there weren't TWO shootings...a gay one and a Florida one...so good news for me really that there was only one Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering the minimal time-investment involved in learning basic facts and current events, that entirely bypass, I don't know, some vision of news-getting wherein one sits after dinner to an hour of Kronkite or something, well, it's a strange system. You have also in the past expressed not simply a lack of trust (understandable) or a lack of time (which is frankly silly in this age of the Internet), but a lack of interest. Which hey obviously I think is bad, but that is after all just one man's opinion. But 'don't have time' and 'I have you guys to tell me things' is really pretty weak. Since it takes very little time and since in the past more often than not you've been less than receptive to suggestions that you do some research. Often citing a lack of time, in fact.
That is a criticism, sure, but it is also of past events. This time you didn't, say, object to people calling this an attack on homosexuals without for example even knowing they were homosexual. So, golf clap I suppose?
As for having thought you were joking: it didn't occur to me that you didn't actually know it was a gay nightclub, or that when some religious figure starts talking about pedophiles it is frequently code, implicit or explicit, for 'homosexual'. So I thought you were making a tongue in cheek remark that seemed pretty strange, hence my terse one word reply.
If BlackBlade and Lyrhawn didn't also think you were joking-that you knew it was an attack on homosexuals but were making some sort of wordplay or jibe-well, I'm willing to be surprised. Incidentally, both of those posters are on your list of 'people I will listen to', as expressed by you. I wonder if you wouldn't consider running your 'I don't have time to be informed, the media lies, and anyway I've got you guys to tell me stuff' policy and see what they thought about it. They too are busy and might not be able or interested in answering such a question, but it might be interesting.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Outside third-party lurker POV on the exchange:
quote:Stone_wolf: Bc all people at a night club molest children???
I read this as you making fun of the pastor by intentionally missing the obvious homosexual/pedophile smear, especially with the emoji tacked on the end of it.
quote:Rakeesh: Homosexuals
Rakeesh reading it as you legitimately being oblivious and being helpful by giving you a heads up.
quote:Lyrhawn: Oh, so he didn't mean Latinos? They're really hitting across a lot of demographics.
Lyr adding a new level of absurdity to the joke... that they're somehow pedophiles because of their race.
quote:JanitorBlade: I'm pretty sure he meant all Orlandoans are pedophiles.
BlackBlade following on the joke by taking it to a still higher level of absurdity, that they're somehow pedophiles because of the town they live in.
quote:Heisenberg: 8/10 quality pisstaking
Heisenberg appreciating the ribbing/joking... I lived in the UK for a minute, so "taking the piss" made perfect sense.
quote:Stone_Wolf:
You somehow sensing that people are joking with you, but not understanding why, and not bothering to take a moment to Google it... choosing instead to take that time to post an emoji and wait for someone to spoonfeed you.
quote:Heisenberg: Oh, come on. You still don't get it?
What the hell, might as well charge that windmill... <and so on, and so on>
Heis realizes you weren't joking and were missing something... and resigns himself to try to explain.
But Heis misses the simplest, but probably most unexpected, explanation.... that you had truly been living under a rock about current events entirely. He assumes that you were either a) being obtuse, or b) don't know the homosexual/pedophile smear connection. But your ignorance went much deeper than that, to just being oblivious to the biggest news story of the past week... which takes a LOT of effort in this day and age for someone who finds themself on a computer long enough to post to a message board.
I didn't see earlier posters poking fun at you, because I thought you were in on the joke. I thought they were just adding more ridiculous statements to your first.
quote:Stone_Wolf: Didn't know it was a gay club...been a busy week.
Here you cop to being wholly oblivious of the world around you for the past week, which is pretty amazing, I must say.
You later go on to say you were aware of a gay hate shooting... yet somehow didn't put 2+2 together with the pastor's statements, which seems a bit disingenuous (which makes me think Heis' two points may have been spot on... either you were being obtuse, or didn't know the homosexual/pedophile smear connection).
quote:Stone_Wolf: Maybe you are putting too much time/thought into this?
You gave the "I dunno" emoji that prompted someone to give you an explanation, had chosen to put the burden on the board to fill in the gaps on something that would have taken seconds to Google.... then you take a dig at Heisenberg for actually taking the bait. Unnecessary.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth...Flying Cow's interpretation looks correct to me. I thought we were all joking and didn't catch that Stone Wolf wasn't in on it.
And where on Earth do you live and what were you doing that a pine cone punched through your windshield? Are the forests arming themselves too now?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As promised, my bad on misinterpreting the direction of Lyrhawn and, presumably, Blackblade's jokes.
I agree that Flying Cow's synopsis seems to be a decent summary. Seriously, if you're going to take the time to post in political or current news related discussions, you should probably be willing to pop your head outside of your bubble. Or spend a minute with Google.
I'm glad to see you seem to have realised that, though.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I live in a forrest..."Pines by the sea"...it's on the license frames & tee shirts & coffee mugs.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
I feel like we've come to a strange new iteration of the Cultural Revolution when it comes to more militant MRA leaning New Atheist leftists where anything from the past that is held sacred need be taken down and demolished to make room for the new ideology.
I feel like the chain of logic went like this "The Germans are allowing in Syrian refugees" -> "They are doing this because of their guilt." -> Ergo, "You know what isn't it about time Germany got over their past?" -> "Then they won't let in any additional Muslims." Plus throw in some Islamophobic insinuations about ISIS terrorists being let in despite the fact that the EU has Interpol and other agencies for a reason.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on, Elison. Out of the hundreds of thousands of people already through the door, you don't think that ISIS hasn't slipped in at least a few sleeper agents? We can't even tell when young men in our own countries are about to go off; what tests and background checks do you think are being performed that could reliably catch every one? Assuming those tests actually exist, how many people do you think it would require to perform them on all of those refugees, and do you think that these agencies actually possess that manpower?
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think many would argue that, given the low odds of an attack, the very, very low odds of an attack, that might come from letting refugees in, they should still let refugees in.
Doing the right thing shouldn't only happen when it's easy and comes at no cost.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see your point. The thing is, the Southerners have been shoveling all of the refugees up to the Northwest, where I live. That's not an accident. The town I live in has had the most refugees assigned to it in the nation. The people making the call to bring them in certainly don't want them anywhere near them.
I know that sounds racist, but I promise it's not. I work with devout Muslims, I live in a Muslim neighborhood, and since moving from the States I've gained a much greater appreciation for the culture and the people. The fact is if and when an attack happens, it's likely to be where I live or very close by. It makes it a bit harder to be so blasé about possibly sacrificing myself or the people around me in the name of the greater good.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
An additional point that might be considered is that the social services and medical system are much different here then in the US. They're socialised, and much more generous. And they're already extremely strained, both for personnel and funding. There really does come a point when there are just too many people to keep the services at the same level.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's racist. I know I have a different perspective than a lot of people in the West and even in America having grown up so close to Dearborn, Michigan. I grew up with Muslim and Chaldean friends. They're neighbors and co-workers. So the thought of bringing in more Muslims, even ones who didn't grow up here, doesn't really bother me except for a minor intellectual knowledge that statistically the risk is less than zero. But I imagine that statistic to many other people probably plays a much larger role in their thought process.
I don't think anyone is being blase about the risk. I certainly wasn't, though I get that my one sentence above probably looks that way. It's awfully easy to moralize to someone else about what risks they should take for my ethics, or even trying to hold them to theirs, when it's not MY risk to take.
But I really do think the risk is that low. I'd be more concerned about living next to teenagers if they lowered the drinking and driving age than I would be living next to Muslim refugees.
I don't think the floodgates need to be opened. I think every country should take as many refugees as is feasible. That's all the refugees they can reasonably house, feed, take care of, afford, etc. If you're at your limit, then okay. But I think we owe it, within the best of our abilities, to take care of as many people as we can. I think the US has been shameful in its response to the Syrian crisis. Generally I think we're pretty good about bringing in refugees. But if we couldn't take them in we should have at least helped finance other countries nearer to the crisis to help.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel like these are all mainly an issue of risk management, and yet, instead we get some sort of extremely tortured string of logic instead about how it's high time the Germans stopped feeling guilty about WW2 so they can stop their naughty 'virtue signalling'.
It's confounding. I was being told "Sargon is really intelligent" by this person who seems to also not like feminists and so figured okay maybe this time I'll get it, but nope. More idiotic sophistry.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam, I stole your Trump/Vogon quote. If you see it in a facebook meme, it probably came through me.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: An additional point that might be considered is that the social services and medical system are much different here then in the US. They're socialised, and much more generous. And they're already extremely strained, both for personnel and funding. There really does come a point when there are just too many people to keep the services at the same level.
usually the problem doesn't come down to scale of use so much as it comes down to that it is being starved piecemeal and has been operating far under capable budget for years and years
i don't know if the eu medical system is suffering from neglect (chopped budgets over time, lack of legislation to expand their activity, etc) or if it is a more intentional starve-the-beast style malevolence where they are intentionally underfunding it to make it work poorly so that they can use its poor functioning state as an excuse for why these things don't work and we should get rid of it
but either way it sucks
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Bc in other countries they use bombs?
because only in the us would it be reasonably imaginable that two mass murders would happen on the same weekend.
It would still be horrific but I wouldn't be flabbergasted if such a thing happened in the US. Meanwhile most other western nations are stunned if one happens at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If this had been a bombing, then it would have tied in to the idea of the United States not being special when it came to mass murders. Though in the rest of the world, no, mass murder via bombing is not remotely common outside of actual warzones such as Syria.
Since this wasn't a bombing, the idea that there might have been two mass shootings on the same day in the same city is, in the United States anyway, at least plausible if, well, uninformed to an alarming degree.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get the humor of Hunter's comment (thank you for the explanation )
It's just a weird dynamic...HAD it been a bomb instead of a gun...then the opposite joke could be made...
However, the point I'm trying for is...who cares about the tool used?...it really doesn't matter that much if it was an AR, a sword, a bomb, a car or a pointy stick really!
Sure a pointy stick is harder to wield as effectively...but arguibly it could be done.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could not kill 49 people in a nightclub with a pointy stick before you were stopped. You couldn't kill 49 people with a pointy stick, period. It would break.
Hell a knife might break after stabbing *one* person, much less dozens. For God's sake! It's not sufficient to say 'ban guns', and I don't support that anyway, but 'what about pointy sticks?' Goddamn.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: However, the point I'm trying for is...who cares about the tool used?...it really doesn't matter that much if it was an AR, a sword, a bomb, a car or a pointy stick really!
Don't do this. this is a stupid thing to do. it absolutely matters what was used. We do not have an epidemic of hundreds of thousands of people being murdered in pointy stick sprees. Pointy sticks are not renown for letting people murder dozens of lgbt folk or schoolkids in the span of a few minutes.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway, bombings are not often a thing in the United States, it's true. One possible reason being the widespread, easy access to a much more reliable weapon that requires far less expertise to use. And guarantees more effect for those who are amateurs in firearms and not also master bombers.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's right that it would be bombs outside the US (or missiles if Israel is having a bad day with target identification), but it wouldn't be two separate events. I can't think of any bombings that were related in time but not connected.
quote:i don't know if the eu medical system is suffering from neglect (chopped budgets over time, lack of legislation to expand their activity, etc) or if it is a more intentional starve-the-beast style malevolence where they are intentionally underfunding it to make it work poorly so that they can use its poor functioning state as an excuse for why these things don't work and we should get rid of it
I have it on pretty good authority from British friends that the Tories (spits) are intentionally ruining the National Health Service so they can justify selling it off.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: He's right that it would be bombs outside the US (or missiles if Israel is having a bad day with target identification), but it wouldn't be two separate events. I can't think of any bombings that were related in time but not connected.
quote:i don't know if the eu medical system is suffering from neglect (chopped budgets over time, lack of legislation to expand their activity, etc) or if it is a more intentional starve-the-beast style malevolence where they are intentionally underfunding it to make it work poorly so that they can use its poor functioning state as an excuse for why these things don't work and we should get rid of it
I have it on pretty good authority from British friends that the Tories (spits) are intentionally ruining the National Health Service so they can justify selling it off.
I can confirm this. Already, smaller bits and pieces are being privatised, in the name of "efficiency."
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You could not kill 49 people in a nightclub with a pointy stick before you were stopped. You couldn't kill 49 people with a pointy stick, period. It would break.
Hell a knife might break after stabbing *one* person, much less dozens. For God's sake! It's not sufficient to say 'ban guns', and I don't support that anyway, but 'what about pointy sticks?' Goddamn.
I so could! But you have to double dog dare me first.
Imagine Jet Li or Bruce Li or Jackie Chan with a sharp stick...oh no it broke...now I have two pointy sticks!
My point was plainly stated...what does the method matter? Planning prevention is one possible good answer. But "because he used a gun", in and of itself doesn't strike me as particularly of much import.
Other than if a single one of those unfortunate victims had been armed, statistically the mad man (closeted gay I heard) would have been stopped after two killings.
Having free access to guns is the freedom side of the coin...carrying a weapon to defend yourself and those around you is the responsibility side.
I'm in process currently to carry concealed in my new county.
And if you guys remember, I was for a psych eval as a prereq for ownership.
I'm almost to printer with the quarterly...I'll post more with some research soonish.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:carrying a weapon to defend yourself and those around you is the responsibility side
No. It's the delusional, masturbatory side. There's nothing responsible about carrying a gun to a nightclub.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
1. There actually were two high profile shootings IN ORLANDO that weekend. A singer was shot and killed by a fan at a big concert in addition to the mass shooting. What would otherwise be major news was largely drowned out.
2. Stone Wolf, you said that "statistically" it was likely that an armed person in the crowd would have ended the attack after only two people were killed. I'm not sure where you got that statistic. How many mass shootings were broken up in the last year by someone who was armed in the crowd? For that matter, there WAS an armed guard at Pulse who failed to take the shooter down. There IS evidence that vigilantes in crowds are terrible at stopping mass shooters. When Gabby Giffords was shot, a man in the crowd almost shot an off duty police officer. Why? Because in that situation, with little or no training (or even with training), it's VERY difficult to deduce WHO to shoot at. It's not always the crazy person with an AR-15, and even then, if I have a gun and I see someone with a gun, it's hard to look away from that person. You never know. There's a similar story out of the Virginia Tech shooting, that an armed student was nearly killed by police because the situation was very confusing and no one knew who the active shooter actually was. Also, when someone tried to take down the mall shooter in Seattle a few years back, he was instantly targeted by the mass shooter and killed. In short: there's little data to support your point, and quite a bit of data to suggest that untrained vigilantes are actually terrible at stopping a mass shooting in process.
3. Anyone who says the method doesn't matter is being pretty silly. Clearly a gun is more deadly than a knife. How do I know this? We haven't fought wars with swords...ever...in America. We switched to guns. Because guns kill people better. It's literally the only thing they were designed to do. Guns shoot things. Guns were made to kill either people or animals. Quickly. Accurately. From a distance or up close. Peddling the idea that a pointy stick is the same thing as a long gun with a high capacity magazine is incredibly intellectually dishonest.
4. Why do we pretend that guns are different from anything else in society that kills people? Cigarettes kill people, so we regulate the hell out of them and try to get as few people as possible to smoke them. Cars are dangerous, and back when they killed an awful lot more people, we started regulating the crap out of them to make them safer, and we required people to have insurance to drive one. When terrorists hijacked a plan they reinforced cockpit doors and stepped up searches. When one smuggled in a bomb, they made us take off our shoes and submit to those naked xray vision scans. So on and so on and so on and so on. Every time we've identified a mass threat in society we've taken mass action to reduce the number of deaths. Have any of these solutions COMPLETELY ELIMINATED THE THREAT? No. But we've saved millions of lives for our efforts. Why are guns the only thing that everyone claims defy all the rest of the rules we've set up in society for how we decide to enact regulation to save lives? Guns, in that sense, are no different than unprocessed milk or seat belts. Yet half our society pretends they are. Can we please do more to do away with this notion?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I so could! But you have to double dog dare me first.
Imagine Jet Li or Bruce Li or Jackie Chan with a sharp stick...oh no it broke...now I have two pointy sticks!
I realize you're likely joking, but it's appropriate that your first response in support of your position references...action movies.
Given that you brought up pointy sticks, it's not ridiculous to point out, "No, that's stupid. You could not kill 49 people with a single pointy stick."
quote:My point was plainly stated...what does the method matter? Planning prevention is one possible good answer. But "because he used a gun", in and of itself doesn't strike me as particularly of much import.
Other than if a single one of those unfortunate victims had been armed, statistically the mad man (closeted gay I heard) would have been stopped after two killings.
In terms of the people who are dead? Well, no of course it doesn't matter much. In terms of as you say prevention, well, if there is a common tool in use for mass shootings as opposed to bombings, pointy stickings, piranha attacks, angry head lice, or whatever else, and if that tool might be regulated, then it's freaking relevant! Again. I'm not saying that because it's relevant is enough reason to think it should be banned. But it's not *nothing*, either.
As for the armed partygoer...ok. Well Lyrhawn, one of the people you're on record as stating you will actually hear criticism from, has pointed out how ignorant and stupid your remarks on that point are, using the kind of civil discourse that he is a good enough guy to use consistently and that you insist upon regardless of how ridiculously, laughably uninformed you make a choice to be. Suffice to say: someone at the Pulse club did have firearm and tried to use that gun to stop further killing. He was an off duty cop in uniform, I believe, hired to do security.
So if you take nothing else from this conversation or indeed from this mass shooting at all, for the love of god especially if you're going to get a concealed weapon's permit, disabuse yourself of the notion that the solution to this is more guards and more guns.
It's a goddamned nightclub. People do drugs, they drink, it's loud and crowded and often poorly lit. You're not ****ing Jet Li with a pointy stick if you've got a gun in a mass shooting event. For god's sake!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude...mass stabbing in China lead to 29 dead and 130 wounded...sure that was 5 guys with knives, not one with a pointy stick...but the point remains salient.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's appalling to me, and more than a little disturbing, to realize just how often people think they are some sort of unconscious badass who can Get Shit Done if Shit Goes Down. How unconsidered, reflexive, and strongly defended the idea so often is that if just someone (man) was there with a gun, he would've stopped the killing (been the bero), and saved everyone.
That's comic book thinking. The reality is that there were cops there, both off duty and serving as security, and some of them including the explicit security were armed. The reality is that even though the highest level of non-specific armed readiness we have for our civil society-that is, cops who aren't guarding against a known threat but are simply providing general security-the fantasy that One Man could have Gotten It Done when It Went Down.
So if we're going to talk about the 'responsibility' side of the coin of gun ownership, where the hell should 'recognition that some time at the range and some training does not make me a steely-eyed gunfighter who is at the necessary pinnacle of readiness at all times and in all places'? Because that's what's necessary for this rhetoric about 'some concealed carry club goers would've sorted this out' to be valid.
The closest people we've got to actual action movie heroes, the SEALS, the Rangers, the Recon Marines, the Green Berets, they train at professional violence and tactics like it was necessary to breathe and not only will you have a hard time finding such a soldier who has 'trained enough', even those people with vast advantages in training, in equipment, in intelligence, sometimes things go wrong.
Know what's just as if not more likely than a hypothetical couple of armed partygoers seeing it start and intervening to stop it? The paranoid, already amped up shooter sees them going for their guns and fires, killing them and several other people nearby. Or they shoot, miss, and fire is returned killing them and others nearby. Always assuming of course that chance doesn't see them shot by the maniac first.
And against that situation, where *maybe* they get super lucky and stop it early even though such encounters have happened and haven't succeeded, you've got to account for the rest of the time. All the time they spend in that club with booze, drugs, crowds, and a lack of sleep.
It's not a slam dunk.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Dude...mass stabbing in China lead to 29 dead and 130 wounded...sure that was 5 guys with knives, not one with a pointy stick...but the point remains salient.
In a much more crowded country, it took 500% of the attackers to attain 80% of the deaths and by all means tell me about the other dozens of mass stabbings that have happened in that vastly more crowded nation over the past decade using a tool that is useful not just for self defense but actually vital in other vital areas such as cooking, agriculture, construction, medicine, so on and so forth.
It's not a salient point. It's freaking ridiculous. Even in ancient times when societies would bar commoners from owning outright weapons you could never have prohibited blades, because they are necessary to a whole slew of vital activities.
Countries can and have banned firearms without descending into tyranny. Again, this is not by itself enough to say 'ban all guns!', but it is enough to dismiss as preposterous your nonsense about pointy sticks and knives.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah. Ignore me if you like, of course. Particularly where I'm saying basically what Lyrhawn is saying, only meaner.
Whatever you do, though, don't say anything like, "Ok, the pointy sticks and knives bit was silly, and discovering that mass murdere with knives do happen doesn't actually validate my point that the method doesn't matter at all." Make sure not to say that or think it because I'm so mean, and because Samprimary is so mean, even though your designated 'I'll listen to this guy' is also saying it's absurd, just dismiss it. All of it.
After all, this is just one of those areas where someone doesn't actually need to know facts and context, because Common Sense is enough and for goodness sake I thought about it for about five minutes and if I had been there with a concealed carry permit and a gun this wouldn't have happened.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You sure like the sound of your own "voice" dude.
It must be easier to win arguments when you control both sides...please tell me what I'll do next...it's SO much easier than having my own thoughts and feelings. [/sarcasm]
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You sure like the sound of your own "voice" dude.
It must be easier to win arguments when you control both sides...please tell me what I'll do next...it's SO much easier than having my own thoughts and feelings. [/sarcasm]
My own voice recalling stances you have taken in very similar circumstances, I believe you meant to say.
Anyway, you've dismissed me, remember? And Lyrhawn had some very pointed things to say about concealed carry and armed guards and club goers. He's on the list of people you'll listen to. It'll be an interesting test, I think, to see which is stronger for you: the 'I respect this guy, like the way he talks, and he always knows what he's talking about' versus the 'this guy is just too mean, I don't have to listen to or address anything he says'-when he's saying some of the same things.
Armed guards. Pulse nightclub. Mass shooting. Lyrhawn. And....GO!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you enjoy hearing my version of your thoughts through recent discussions? So don't be shocked when I'm less than amused as well.
I did not dismiss you from the whole conversation, simply the sharpened stick part, because you made your view, that it is not worthy of discussion, very clear, and I disagree, and don't feel like listening to you that I should stop that part of the discussion.
In other words, please stop demanding I shut up and about stuff I want to talk about, and then go off the deep end with hubris before I even get to step one. Your suspicious twaddle is turned up to 8 and I'm not even out the gate yet.
Keep it in your pants man
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
