|
On July 01 2008 02:28 Kwark wrote:It was actually the British who offered freedom to slaves willing to fight, not Mel as Hollywood suggests. They've taken a historical event and twisted it in the hope that no-one will notice.
Actually, both sides offered slaves freedom in return for service in the war.
And taxes were 1/20th of what a comparable British paid, not even covering the cost of the colonies defence. ie you were being subsidised by the British taxpayer. I can start citing sources and quoting statistics if needed.
Sources would be good.
|
On July 01 2008 05:49 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2008 01:57 5HITCOMBO wrote:On June 30 2008 12:28 micronesia wrote:On June 30 2008 11:38 rpf wrote:On June 30 2008 10:19 micronesia wrote:
RPF: I agree except I think you are generalizing a bit too much. There are actually some reasonable things to say about gun control, and there are certain pro-gun advocates who should shut up. Can you elaborate a little bit? I'd like to hear what you have to say about that (what gun control points are valid and what pro-gun advocates should shut up). I'll pass. I'm not going to dedicate the time/energy to try to defend advocates of increased gun control, even if I do feel some of them are reasonable, and it is all but self evident that there are going to be some pro-gun advocates saying stupid things and getting the discussion nowhere. As a general rule I try not to take a stance on whether or not guns should be controlled on the internet anymore. What. So why are you nitpicking the two posters arguing for the constitutional side of things and only their posts? Don't play neutral after clearly choosing a side. I pointed out what I believe are more or less factual inaccuracies... I have not attempted to convince someone of the proper legality. My goal is not to convince someone on what should be done, but rather what is true. This is why I, for the most part, am not being argumentative. Edit: Er, if I choose to nitpick some posts and not others that's my prerogative, however, I don't think you should take any offense if I chose your post over someone else's since I'm not closely following this thread.
I stated a bunch of facts about pistols and you followed it up with a half-page, point-by-point refutation of why you could do it better with a rifle or a shotgun.
Basically every point you made there was an opinion. Facts should not be debatable.
Stay out of the discussion if you aren't willing to discuss, please.
|
I have to agree with that, micro. You brought up a couple of discussion points, and when asked to elaborate, you decline. When you're ready to discuss it, we'll be here. 
What 5hit said is true: Facts aren't really debatable. It's quite easy to look up raw data published by the federal government (and most individual states, as well). It's easy to see what happens, with what, how, and all of that.
Statements that contain things like "Ideally," or "should" usually aren't facts. It's like how Jibba was saying that the way things are right now isn't how it should be; that's an opinion, which is debatable, but what "should be" isn't necessarily right, fair, or Constitutional.
|
Actually, you know what?
Nobody's opinion will change about anything.
GL rpf; I'm out  .
|
United States24773 Posts
On July 01 2008 08:13 5HITCOMBO wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2008 05:49 micronesia wrote:On July 01 2008 01:57 5HITCOMBO wrote:On June 30 2008 12:28 micronesia wrote:On June 30 2008 11:38 rpf wrote:On June 30 2008 10:19 micronesia wrote:
RPF: I agree except I think you are generalizing a bit too much. There are actually some reasonable things to say about gun control, and there are certain pro-gun advocates who should shut up. Can you elaborate a little bit? I'd like to hear what you have to say about that (what gun control points are valid and what pro-gun advocates should shut up). I'll pass. I'm not going to dedicate the time/energy to try to defend advocates of increased gun control, even if I do feel some of them are reasonable, and it is all but self evident that there are going to be some pro-gun advocates saying stupid things and getting the discussion nowhere. As a general rule I try not to take a stance on whether or not guns should be controlled on the internet anymore. What. So why are you nitpicking the two posters arguing for the constitutional side of things and only their posts? Don't play neutral after clearly choosing a side. I pointed out what I believe are more or less factual inaccuracies... I have not attempted to convince someone of the proper legality. My goal is not to convince someone on what should be done, but rather what is true. This is why I, for the most part, am not being argumentative. Edit: Er, if I choose to nitpick some posts and not others that's my prerogative, however, I don't think you should take any offense if I chose your post over someone else's since I'm not closely following this thread. I stated a bunch of facts about pistols and you followed it up with a half-page, point-by-point refutation of why you could do it better with a rifle or a shotgun. Basically every point you made there was an opinion. Facts should not be debatable. I'm going to take the high road regarding what I bolded.... and just point out that it is impossible to provide facts regarding the topic I was discussing with you... it's all going to be opinions. However, the opinions that would be agreed upon by highly credible people are more useful than the opinions of others, typically. If you want to claim that my 'half-page, point-by-point refutation' somehow was not entirely accurate based upon what is agreed upon by the majority of military and law enforcement personnel, then feel free. And yes, facts are usually debatable... just hopefully they persist more times than not.
On July 01 2008 08:21 rpf wrote:I have to agree with that, micro. You brought up a couple of discussion points, and when asked to elaborate, you decline. When you're ready to discuss it, we'll be here. First of all I think it's clear that my discussion with 5HitCombo and my discussion with you where you requested more information are not linked/related. You seem to be building on his complaints even though there is no correlation.
What 5hit said is true: Facts aren't really debatable. It's quite easy to look up raw data published by the federal government (and most individual states, as well). It's easy to see what happens, with what, how, and all of that.
Statements that contain things like "Ideally," or "should" usually aren't facts. It's like how Jibba was saying that the way things are right now isn't how it should be; that's an opinion, which is debatable, but what "should be" isn't necessarily right, fair, or Constitutional.
Just to clarify, when I said 'more or less facts' regarding proper gun usage etc., I was not literally meaning facts, and we can argue all day about what facts are, but I'm not interested in semantics. You said:
Can you elaborate a little bit? I'd like to hear what you have to say about that (what gun control points are valid and what pro-gun advocates should shut up).
Are you going to claim that there are 0 logical pro control arguments? Are you going to claim that there are 0 pro gun idiots making poor arguments? It is pretty much guaranteed that what I said was correct. What you wanted was for me to provide specific examples of a claim I made... which is fine when there is at least a reasonable chance that the claim isn't right... but come on. My lack of discussion in this thread has not been because I'm not defending myself at a time when I need to...
|
On June 30 2008 03:26 rpf wrote:
Often times, the reasons the pro-rights community resists gun control is on principle (Second Amendment's purpose), or logic (the law-abiding were never the problem in the first place). The anti-rights community responds making asinine and derogatory comments ("It'll be the Wild Wild West!" "I don't feel safe."), which are almost never based on any academia, research, or anything relevant to the discussion.
Then they make comments based on their own general distrust of others and themselves ("People will shoot each other over road rage."). There's a reason many employment exams ask you if you think most employees steal from their employers or if you think people are distrustful. If you think they do, or are, then it's simply due to anecdotal evidence, meaning you take your own personal experience and project it to others.
So, when someone says they think someone would shoot someone over a simple disagreement, it's because they should.
"People who agree with me are logical and intelligent, and people who don't are fucking idiots! Not only that, because they support gun control, they are clearly murderous fucks who would shoot people whenever they get angry!"
I can try and debate facts, but I really can't deal with bullshit like this. Fuck this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
