|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
|
|
Ok not exactly the same. I see the responsibilities here but not the restrictions.
Probably a bit pedantic on my part regardless, as I do think there should be restrictions and that we shouldn't blindly follow texts written long ago in different circumstances.
|
On December 14 2019 00:54 NewSunshine wrote:
Sure, Danglars isn't the only one reading the thread, but he's the one who transformed the discussion into how people who try to express genuine sympathy are being attacked. That was never the point. This is a discussion that's gone in circles a million times. Genuine or no, these expressions of sympathy always seem to accompany no action, suggesting that they either don't care, or they do care, but they view it as an unavoidable price to pay for their rights. Even if you take the latter, there's still the assumption that nothing can be done about our current predicament, which simply isn't true. Getting caught in the weeds about whether we're catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy only ensures that nothing more gets accomplished. Which I'm sure for Danglars is part of the point.
The discussion should be about whether things can be done(which... yes) and what, but instead we're caught on this other discussion stemming from a perceived attack, which of course is leading nowhere.
I don't have high hopes for any action on this issue until the attack-the-sympathy crowd realizes they're alienating the persuadable voters out there. I might be in the minority when I say it's moronic to consider sympathy false when someone else judges the action insufficient. This goes back to Wombat's point: he would think it unjust for his stance on a surveillance stance to invalidate his sympathy for the victims of terrorism. I think everybody here would have a more wise opinion on the matter if they were constantly insulted on the human emotion side of an issue for not supporting a particular policy on the issue. The stances I constantly hear in this thread only makes sense if debaters in this thread were relatively unexposed to people denying their own compassion day in and day out.
Also, since when is failure to rake people over the coals for thoughts and prayers suddenly catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy? Catering? Keeping your derogatory comments to yourself is almost a public good in this case. But apparently sticking it to the thoughts and prayers crowd is more important than gun control.
|
|
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On December 14 2019 01:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2019 00:54 NewSunshine wrote:
Sure, Danglars isn't the only one reading the thread, but he's the one who transformed the discussion into how people who try to express genuine sympathy are being attacked. That was never the point. This is a discussion that's gone in circles a million times. Genuine or no, these expressions of sympathy always seem to accompany no action, suggesting that they either don't care, or they do care, but they view it as an unavoidable price to pay for their rights. Even if you take the latter, there's still the assumption that nothing can be done about our current predicament, which simply isn't true. Getting caught in the weeds about whether we're catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy only ensures that nothing more gets accomplished. Which I'm sure for Danglars is part of the point.
The discussion should be about whether things can be done(which... yes) and what, but instead we're caught on this other discussion stemming from a perceived attack, which of course is leading nowhere. I don't have high hopes for any action on this issue until the attack-the-sympathy crowd realizes they're alienating the persuadable voters out there. I might be in the minority when I say it's moronic to consider sympathy false when someone else judges the action insufficient. This goes back to Wombat's point: he would think it unjust for his stance on a surveillance stance to invalidate his sympathy for the victims of terrorism. I think everybody here would have a more wise opinion on the matter if they were constantly insulted on the human emotion side of an issue for not supporting a particular policy on the issue. The stances I constantly hear in this thread only makes sense if debaters in this thread were relatively unexposed to people denying their own compassion day in and day out. Also, since when is failure to rake people over the coals for thoughts and prayers suddenly catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy? Catering? Keeping your derogatory comments to yourself is almost a public good in this case. But apparently sticking it to the thoughts and prayers crowd is more important than gun control.
I see some analogies to the somehow even more fractious topic of abortion.
It really does nothing to persuade the other camp if you’re calling them baby killers on one side, or saying they hate women having autonomy on the other.
There’s a difference of opinion on a point of underlying principle around what constitutes a life or doesn’t, but yet the rhetoric is more akin to ‘the other people are horrible humans’ all too often.
|
On December 14 2019 01:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2019 00:54 NewSunshine wrote:
Sure, Danglars isn't the only one reading the thread, but he's the one who transformed the discussion into how people who try to express genuine sympathy are being attacked. That was never the point. This is a discussion that's gone in circles a million times. Genuine or no, these expressions of sympathy always seem to accompany no action, suggesting that they either don't care, or they do care, but they view it as an unavoidable price to pay for their rights. Even if you take the latter, there's still the assumption that nothing can be done about our current predicament, which simply isn't true. Getting caught in the weeds about whether we're catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy only ensures that nothing more gets accomplished. Which I'm sure for Danglars is part of the point.
The discussion should be about whether things can be done(which... yes) and what, but instead we're caught on this other discussion stemming from a perceived attack, which of course is leading nowhere. I don't have high hopes for any action on this issue until the attack-the-sympathy crowd realizes they're alienating the persuadable voters out there. I might be in the minority when I say it's moronic to consider sympathy false when someone else judges the action insufficient. This goes back to Wombat's point: he would think it unjust for his stance on a surveillance stance to invalidate his sympathy for the victims of terrorism. I think everybody here would have a more wise opinion on the matter if they were constantly insulted on the human emotion side of an issue for not supporting a particular policy on the issue. The stances I constantly hear in this thread only makes sense if debaters in this thread were relatively unexposed to people denying their own compassion day in and day out. Also, since when is failure to rake people over the coals for thoughts and prayers suddenly catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy? Catering? Keeping your derogatory comments to yourself is almost a public good in this case. But apparently sticking it to the thoughts and prayers crowd is more important than gun control.
Nobody is attacking anybody for showing displays of sympathy. People have made that clear multiple times. Yet you still seem hung up on it. That's not the issue here.
|
|
|
On December 14 2019 01:30 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2019 01:11 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2019 00:54 NewSunshine wrote:
Sure, Danglars isn't the only one reading the thread, but he's the one who transformed the discussion into how people who try to express genuine sympathy are being attacked. That was never the point. This is a discussion that's gone in circles a million times. Genuine or no, these expressions of sympathy always seem to accompany no action, suggesting that they either don't care, or they do care, but they view it as an unavoidable price to pay for their rights. Even if you take the latter, there's still the assumption that nothing can be done about our current predicament, which simply isn't true. Getting caught in the weeds about whether we're catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy only ensures that nothing more gets accomplished. Which I'm sure for Danglars is part of the point.
The discussion should be about whether things can be done(which... yes) and what, but instead we're caught on this other discussion stemming from a perceived attack, which of course is leading nowhere. I don't have high hopes for any action on this issue until the attack-the-sympathy crowd realizes they're alienating the persuadable voters out there. I might be in the minority when I say it's moronic to consider sympathy false when someone else judges the action insufficient. This goes back to Wombat's point: he would think it unjust for his stance on a surveillance stance to invalidate his sympathy for the victims of terrorism. I think everybody here would have a more wise opinion on the matter if they were constantly insulted on the human emotion side of an issue for not supporting a particular policy on the issue. The stances I constantly hear in this thread only makes sense if debaters in this thread were relatively unexposed to people denying their own compassion day in and day out. Also, since when is failure to rake people over the coals for thoughts and prayers suddenly catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy? Catering? Keeping your derogatory comments to yourself is almost a public good in this case. But apparently sticking it to the thoughts and prayers crowd is more important than gun control. I see some analogies to the somehow even more fractious topic of abortion. It really does nothing to persuade the other camp if you’re calling them baby killers on one side, or saying they hate women having autonomy on the other. There’s a difference of opinion on a point of underlying principle around what constitutes a life or doesn’t, but yet the rhetoric is more akin to ‘the other people are horrible humans’ all too often.
Right right. Baby-killers and you're-abandoning-them-after-forced-birth narratives are largely mirror images of the gun control debate. I think any sober analysis concludes supporters of one approach to abortion ought to support the mirrored approach to gun control.
And the paired arguments "But they really are baby-killers! No, I can prove it to you! You're asking me to cater to baby-killers!" are equally cringeworthy. You want change on abortion, you want change on gun control, or is the rhetoric too important to you to surrender (no matter how hard you believe the *related* deductive truth)?
I just want to hold up a mirror to the surrounding rhetoric from time to time to make sure people know, in their heart of hearts, that they hold certain rhetorical approaches to debate higher than effective and pragmatic solutions to gun control.
|
On December 14 2019 01:45 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2019 01:11 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2019 00:54 NewSunshine wrote:
Sure, Danglars isn't the only one reading the thread, but he's the one who transformed the discussion into how people who try to express genuine sympathy are being attacked. That was never the point. This is a discussion that's gone in circles a million times. Genuine or no, these expressions of sympathy always seem to accompany no action, suggesting that they either don't care, or they do care, but they view it as an unavoidable price to pay for their rights. Even if you take the latter, there's still the assumption that nothing can be done about our current predicament, which simply isn't true. Getting caught in the weeds about whether we're catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy only ensures that nothing more gets accomplished. Which I'm sure for Danglars is part of the point.
The discussion should be about whether things can be done(which... yes) and what, but instead we're caught on this other discussion stemming from a perceived attack, which of course is leading nowhere. I don't have high hopes for any action on this issue until the attack-the-sympathy crowd realizes they're alienating the persuadable voters out there. I might be in the minority when I say it's moronic to consider sympathy false when someone else judges the action insufficient. This goes back to Wombat's point: he would think it unjust for his stance on a surveillance stance to invalidate his sympathy for the victims of terrorism. I think everybody here would have a more wise opinion on the matter if they were constantly insulted on the human emotion side of an issue for not supporting a particular policy on the issue. The stances I constantly hear in this thread only makes sense if debaters in this thread were relatively unexposed to people denying their own compassion day in and day out. Also, since when is failure to rake people over the coals for thoughts and prayers suddenly catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy? Catering? Keeping your derogatory comments to yourself is almost a public good in this case. But apparently sticking it to the thoughts and prayers crowd is more important than gun control. Nobody is attacking anybody for showing displays of sympathy. People have made that clear multiple times. Yet you still seem hung up on it. That's not the issue here.
Blatantly false. Multiple users defended that approach, doubled down on the "enemy" rhetoric (enemies to be defeated rather than fellow citizens to be persuaded), and tried to prove to me that it was innocent/justified/rational. Go back and read the thread if you think anyone showed any signs of backing down on the derogative comments. Read the responses I got when I said it was counterproductive. I think every single page has a least one poster justifying the attack, whether or not they're an emotional psychic knowing it can't be true sympathy or not (engage with Wombat's argument if you really think that's any excuse). Willing blindness to the responses will not help you here.
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On December 14 2019 02:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2019 01:45 NewSunshine wrote:On December 14 2019 01:11 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2019 00:54 NewSunshine wrote:
Sure, Danglars isn't the only one reading the thread, but he's the one who transformed the discussion into how people who try to express genuine sympathy are being attacked. That was never the point. This is a discussion that's gone in circles a million times. Genuine or no, these expressions of sympathy always seem to accompany no action, suggesting that they either don't care, or they do care, but they view it as an unavoidable price to pay for their rights. Even if you take the latter, there's still the assumption that nothing can be done about our current predicament, which simply isn't true. Getting caught in the weeds about whether we're catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy only ensures that nothing more gets accomplished. Which I'm sure for Danglars is part of the point.
The discussion should be about whether things can be done(which... yes) and what, but instead we're caught on this other discussion stemming from a perceived attack, which of course is leading nowhere. I don't have high hopes for any action on this issue until the attack-the-sympathy crowd realizes they're alienating the persuadable voters out there. I might be in the minority when I say it's moronic to consider sympathy false when someone else judges the action insufficient. This goes back to Wombat's point: he would think it unjust for his stance on a surveillance stance to invalidate his sympathy for the victims of terrorism. I think everybody here would have a more wise opinion on the matter if they were constantly insulted on the human emotion side of an issue for not supporting a particular policy on the issue. The stances I constantly hear in this thread only makes sense if debaters in this thread were relatively unexposed to people denying their own compassion day in and day out. Also, since when is failure to rake people over the coals for thoughts and prayers suddenly catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy? Catering? Keeping your derogatory comments to yourself is almost a public good in this case. But apparently sticking it to the thoughts and prayers crowd is more important than gun control. Nobody is attacking anybody for showing displays of sympathy. People have made that clear multiple times. Yet you still seem hung up on it. That's not the issue here. Blatantly false. Multiple users defended that approach, doubled down on the "enemy" rhetoric (enemies to be defeated rather than fellow citizens to be persuaded), and tried to prove to me that it was innocent/justified/rational. Go back and read the thread if you think anyone showed any signs of backing down on the derogative comments. Read the responses I got when I said it was counterproductive. I think every single page has a least one poster justifying the attack, whether or not they're an emotional psychic knowing it can't be true sympathy or not (engage with Wombat's argument if you really think that's any excuse). Willing blindness to the responses will not help you here.
Well I think the relative lack of response to anything I’ve said on the topic and the relatively large amount of responses saying the same thing to anything you’ve said speaks volumes on a lack of engagement.
And unlike charges of me being a GH fanboy I don’t think we’re exactly ideological aligned.
|
|
|
On December 14 2019 02:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2019 01:45 NewSunshine wrote:On December 14 2019 01:11 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2019 00:54 NewSunshine wrote:
Sure, Danglars isn't the only one reading the thread, but he's the one who transformed the discussion into how people who try to express genuine sympathy are being attacked. That was never the point. This is a discussion that's gone in circles a million times. Genuine or no, these expressions of sympathy always seem to accompany no action, suggesting that they either don't care, or they do care, but they view it as an unavoidable price to pay for their rights. Even if you take the latter, there's still the assumption that nothing can be done about our current predicament, which simply isn't true. Getting caught in the weeds about whether we're catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy only ensures that nothing more gets accomplished. Which I'm sure for Danglars is part of the point.
The discussion should be about whether things can be done(which... yes) and what, but instead we're caught on this other discussion stemming from a perceived attack, which of course is leading nowhere. I don't have high hopes for any action on this issue until the attack-the-sympathy crowd realizes they're alienating the persuadable voters out there. I might be in the minority when I say it's moronic to consider sympathy false when someone else judges the action insufficient. This goes back to Wombat's point: he would think it unjust for his stance on a surveillance stance to invalidate his sympathy for the victims of terrorism. I think everybody here would have a more wise opinion on the matter if they were constantly insulted on the human emotion side of an issue for not supporting a particular policy on the issue. The stances I constantly hear in this thread only makes sense if debaters in this thread were relatively unexposed to people denying their own compassion day in and day out. Also, since when is failure to rake people over the coals for thoughts and prayers suddenly catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy? Catering? Keeping your derogatory comments to yourself is almost a public good in this case. But apparently sticking it to the thoughts and prayers crowd is more important than gun control. Nobody is attacking anybody for showing displays of sympathy. People have made that clear multiple times. Yet you still seem hung up on it. That's not the issue here. Blatantly false. Multiple users defended that approach, doubled down on the "enemy" rhetoric (enemies to be defeated rather than fellow citizens to be persuaded), and tried to prove to me that it was innocent/justified/rational. Go back and read the thread if you think anyone showed any signs of backing down on the derogative comments. Read the responses I got when I said it was counterproductive. I think every single page has a least one poster justifying the attack, whether or not they're an emotional psychic knowing it can't be true sympathy or not (engage with Wombat's argument if you really think that's any excuse). Willing blindness to the responses will not help you here.
My dear Danglars, I do not wish for anyone to be harmed. I suppose that's true for you too. So let's talk on what do you propose to reduce the amount of gun violence in the US ?
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On December 14 2019 10:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2019 10:36 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 14 2019 02:06 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2019 01:45 NewSunshine wrote:On December 14 2019 01:11 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2019 00:54 NewSunshine wrote:
Sure, Danglars isn't the only one reading the thread, but he's the one who transformed the discussion into how people who try to express genuine sympathy are being attacked. That was never the point. This is a discussion that's gone in circles a million times. Genuine or no, these expressions of sympathy always seem to accompany no action, suggesting that they either don't care, or they do care, but they view it as an unavoidable price to pay for their rights. Even if you take the latter, there's still the assumption that nothing can be done about our current predicament, which simply isn't true. Getting caught in the weeds about whether we're catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy only ensures that nothing more gets accomplished. Which I'm sure for Danglars is part of the point.
The discussion should be about whether things can be done(which... yes) and what, but instead we're caught on this other discussion stemming from a perceived attack, which of course is leading nowhere. I don't have high hopes for any action on this issue until the attack-the-sympathy crowd realizes they're alienating the persuadable voters out there. I might be in the minority when I say it's moronic to consider sympathy false when someone else judges the action insufficient. This goes back to Wombat's point: he would think it unjust for his stance on a surveillance stance to invalidate his sympathy for the victims of terrorism. I think everybody here would have a more wise opinion on the matter if they were constantly insulted on the human emotion side of an issue for not supporting a particular policy on the issue. The stances I constantly hear in this thread only makes sense if debaters in this thread were relatively unexposed to people denying their own compassion day in and day out. Also, since when is failure to rake people over the coals for thoughts and prayers suddenly catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy? Catering? Keeping your derogatory comments to yourself is almost a public good in this case. But apparently sticking it to the thoughts and prayers crowd is more important than gun control. Nobody is attacking anybody for showing displays of sympathy. People have made that clear multiple times. Yet you still seem hung up on it. That's not the issue here. Blatantly false. Multiple users defended that approach, doubled down on the "enemy" rhetoric (enemies to be defeated rather than fellow citizens to be persuaded), and tried to prove to me that it was innocent/justified/rational. Go back and read the thread if you think anyone showed any signs of backing down on the derogative comments. Read the responses I got when I said it was counterproductive. I think every single page has a least one poster justifying the attack, whether or not they're an emotional psychic knowing it can't be true sympathy or not (engage with Wombat's argument if you really think that's any excuse). Willing blindness to the responses will not help you here. Well I think the relative lack of response to anything I’ve said on the topic and the relatively large amount of responses saying the same thing to anything you’ve said speaks volumes on a lack of engagement. And unlike charges of me being a GH fanboy I don’t think we’re exactly ideological aligned. A big reason for that is because a lot of the responses have been about Danglars specifically and all people on the pro gun side. Also, I did respond to your first one, the second one was also not apples to apples. Yelling that someone is a baby killer is far more crass and offensive then saying "that if all you are going to do is give out "thoughts and prayers" at every shooting and not address the issue then your thoughts and prayers are hollow". But don't worry we will get back to this, because next time there is a shooting that makes the news, because the US has so many you need multiple fatalities for it to get national, there will be a lot of thoughts and prayers and no action by those that could take action. And we will over and over again literally 100's of times a year.
There’s a difference between ‘thoughts and prayers are useless’ and ‘I don’t believe that your thoughts and prayers are genuine’
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On December 14 2019 12:09 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2019 11:33 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 14 2019 10:43 JimmiC wrote:On December 14 2019 10:36 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 14 2019 02:06 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2019 01:45 NewSunshine wrote:On December 14 2019 01:11 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2019 00:54 NewSunshine wrote:
Sure, Danglars isn't the only one reading the thread, but he's the one who transformed the discussion into how people who try to express genuine sympathy are being attacked. That was never the point. This is a discussion that's gone in circles a million times. Genuine or no, these expressions of sympathy always seem to accompany no action, suggesting that they either don't care, or they do care, but they view it as an unavoidable price to pay for their rights. Even if you take the latter, there's still the assumption that nothing can be done about our current predicament, which simply isn't true. Getting caught in the weeds about whether we're catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy only ensures that nothing more gets accomplished. Which I'm sure for Danglars is part of the point.
The discussion should be about whether things can be done(which... yes) and what, but instead we're caught on this other discussion stemming from a perceived attack, which of course is leading nowhere. I don't have high hopes for any action on this issue until the attack-the-sympathy crowd realizes they're alienating the persuadable voters out there. I might be in the minority when I say it's moronic to consider sympathy false when someone else judges the action insufficient. This goes back to Wombat's point: he would think it unjust for his stance on a surveillance stance to invalidate his sympathy for the victims of terrorism. I think everybody here would have a more wise opinion on the matter if they were constantly insulted on the human emotion side of an issue for not supporting a particular policy on the issue. The stances I constantly hear in this thread only makes sense if debaters in this thread were relatively unexposed to people denying their own compassion day in and day out. Also, since when is failure to rake people over the coals for thoughts and prayers suddenly catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy? Catering? Keeping your derogatory comments to yourself is almost a public good in this case. But apparently sticking it to the thoughts and prayers crowd is more important than gun control. Nobody is attacking anybody for showing displays of sympathy. People have made that clear multiple times. Yet you still seem hung up on it. That's not the issue here. Blatantly false. Multiple users defended that approach, doubled down on the "enemy" rhetoric (enemies to be defeated rather than fellow citizens to be persuaded), and tried to prove to me that it was innocent/justified/rational. Go back and read the thread if you think anyone showed any signs of backing down on the derogative comments. Read the responses I got when I said it was counterproductive. I think every single page has a least one poster justifying the attack, whether or not they're an emotional psychic knowing it can't be true sympathy or not (engage with Wombat's argument if you really think that's any excuse). Willing blindness to the responses will not help you here. Well I think the relative lack of response to anything I’ve said on the topic and the relatively large amount of responses saying the same thing to anything you’ve said speaks volumes on a lack of engagement. And unlike charges of me being a GH fanboy I don’t think we’re exactly ideological aligned. A big reason for that is because a lot of the responses have been about Danglars specifically and all people on the pro gun side. Also, I did respond to your first one, the second one was also not apples to apples. Yelling that someone is a baby killer is far more crass and offensive then saying "that if all you are going to do is give out "thoughts and prayers" at every shooting and not address the issue then your thoughts and prayers are hollow". But don't worry we will get back to this, because next time there is a shooting that makes the news, because the US has so many you need multiple fatalities for it to get national, there will be a lot of thoughts and prayers and no action by those that could take action. And we will over and over again literally 100's of times a year. There’s a difference between ‘thoughts and prayers are useless’ and ‘I don’t believe that your thoughts and prayers are genuine’ Yes and no, the discussion was not about regular people who sincerely give there thoughts and prayers, it was a joke about how republican politicians repeatedly hundreds of times a year send out "thoughts and prayers" but don't do anything. Then it devolved when danglars did his danglars thing of being completely disingenuous, just this time instead of making up a story about a friend of his who had terminal baby and evil doctors tried to convince her to terminate saying heinous, heinous things he couldn't repeat (spoiler because it never happened) and then the baby magically lived, and this poor girls is still is not recovered (this was a rebuttal to me saying that the new anti abortion law would have forced my wife to carry our still born for the final two months and put her life in risk not to mention the extra emotional damage on top of what we had gone though.) , he went with super over dramatic offense and painted everyone who said the joke or not with the same brush. So over dramatic that he started saying things like subhuman and so on. The in brackets part is one of many times Danglars has been Danglars and is why so many people acted as if he was bullshit, he has cried wolf way way way to many times. He has written so many things so much more offensive then "don't worry republicans your thoughts and prayers are covered". So yes, some people decided to not take him serious, and some decided to push his buttons, but it has been years of him doing the same concern trolling or straight up made stories. If you go back through the thread there is some good back and forth's on the reasoning where people treat others with respect. And more to the point, thoughts and prayers are only useful to the victims if they help comfort them. Most people after being a innocent victim of a shooting tend to be on the we need more gun control side so hearing someone say "you have my thoughts and prayers" while actively blocking that from happening is like a F you to victims. It plays well with there base though, who think it is very respectful. TLDR: When you are famous for taking the low road, preaching from a soap box on how people need to take the high road is hard to believe it is genuine.
Well perhaps, I made the same points Danglars was making, with multiple (crude) analogies and yet the thread keeps going back to Danglars rather than said points that either he or I raised.
As per said history I don’t really have the inclination to look it up as I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to this, nor would it particularly enrich my life to know it.
He could literally be the worst human who had ever lived and I’d still agree with the specific points he raised.
Likewise with Green Horizons people spend too much time discussing Green Horizons rather than whatever actual point he’s raised in a post.
|
I don't get it, if there are guns in the world, everyone has the right for it. Anything else is stealing power from that person, simple as that.
So all this discussion can be only seen (or originated by) propaganda from states' regime...
Of course there need to be security areas where it is generally not allowed everywhere.
|
On December 14 2019 13:13 Kertorak wrote:
I don't get it, if there are guns in the world, everyone has the right for it. Anything else is stealing power from that person, simple as that.
why does everyone have the right to a gun? also, do you mean the right to own a gun or the right to an actual gun?
|
On December 14 2019 13:13 Kertorak wrote:
I don't get it, if there are guns in the world, everyone has the right for it. Anything else is stealing power from that person, simple as that.
So all this discussion can be only seen (or originated by) propaganda from states' regime...
Of course there need to be security areas where it is generally not allowed everywhere.
That's a complete non sequitur. Just because something exists or is created doesn't necessarily mean that everyone has a right to own it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
