Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You could very well have hit up on the real problem or at least a part of it. From gunslingers in the Cowboy days to modern versions of the same thing violence is glorified. I'm not convinced it's a sure thing but it does bear some reflection...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Why listen to the incessant blathering of a want to be king? You keep quoting these BS percentages. If they were true, congress would be enacting the gun control legislation you want so dearly. In

Yes, people seem to jump from advocation of restrictions immediately to breaking in and taking all guns. What if we treated guns like cars:     I see nothing unreasonable there.

Shall not be infringed.

Posted Images

You could very well have hit up on the real problem or at least a part of it. From gunslingers in the Cowboy days to modern versions of the same thing violence is glorified. I'm not convinced it's a sure thing but it does bear some reflection...

 

I'd certainly be interested to see some research in the area. If I'm not mistaken, part of the reforms proposed by Obama include funding to investigate if any such relationship exists and methods to counteract it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of what I've read has to do with video games and the correlation was not significant. I doubt Obama will get much int eh way of reforms and from what I've read his reforms are unlikely to have much effect but they might be a start. in 50 years having a gun might be as unthinkable as carrying a gun to school to go hunting after class is now... but 50 years ago no one even gave me a odd look when I took my gun to school...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of what I've read has to do with video games and the correlation was not significant. I doubt Obama will get much int eh way of reforms and from what I've read his reforms are unlikely to have much effect but they might be a start. in 50 years having a gun might be as unthinkable as carrying a gun to school to go hunting after class is now... but 50 years ago no one even gave me a odd look when I took my gun to school...

 

I doubt it as well. A lot of it seems to be political bolstering in the wake of a highly publicized, yet rather isolated tragedy, which is incidentally the same reason Australia went on to adopt the harsh laws we currently have (see here).

 

Your last sentence has actually hit on something I meant to mention in my first post. Looking at the numbers, the USA hasn't seen much change in the way of gun homicide rates since about 1998, except in the last 5 years where it has been very slowly decreasing (see here). A similar argument can also be made for total homicide rates (see here). While it's true that violent crime rates are abnormally high in the US compared to other developed nations, the fact that rates are decreasing (albeit slowly) shows that a lot of the current hype over gun control laws is just that. Media induced hype. That's not to say that the US wouldn't benefit from certain reforms, but the situation is nowhere near as dire as people are being led to believe it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is sad that this is being used to make political head way. Being a liberal is not always easy where I live and this silliness isn't helping the progressive agenda. Just one more thing to divide the populace...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm contrasting that with what I started out with' date=' line one, of this exchange... [/quote'] Then it's an invalid comparison, as I noted. W's behavior while signing actual bills establishing authoritarian impositions on our civil liberties, is not comparable with Obama's theatrics at staged press conferences. You were comparing apples and oranges, and denying that one of them grows on trees.

 

And the body of your posting here is simply reiteration of that basic and fundamentally invalid comparison. An emotional and irrational comparison, btw.

 

But I'm not terribly concerned about magazine sizes actually, only offended that they use little kids and post tragedy emotional tidal waves to pass these laws.
What you posted was an accusation that "one side" of the issue was doing that, and not the other. And further, that that circumstance was some kind of argument against the actual legislation proposed.

 

You are only offended by "one side" of your imaginary division. If you were equally offended by whatever side was using irrational and emotional appeals, you would be lambasting the NRA for their scummy TV ads involving children (two different posters have brought them to your attention) and cooperating with us lefties in getting some decent politics done. Instead, you make yourself an emotional and irrational obstacle to reasonable and effective government altogether.

 

I shaped a hypothetical scenario that should violate your sensibilities in order to demonstrate how my sensibilities' date=' and others like me, could be interpreted. If you don't want to understand "the other side" then why are you here? [/quote'] So I was correct in pointing out that you were posting delusion, and comparing fantasy with reality as if they were equivalent supports for opinion. How does that indicate a lack of understanding on my part?
Yeah, like I said, trotting out victims is a favorite democrats are particularly prone to doing. I see it from all sides of any given cause, and it's predictable and prolific, but especially a favorite of lefties.
And as repeatedly observed, with examples ranging from 9/11 to the recent NRA ads exploiting children (Obama's and others), this is a delusion of yours taht you have allowed to dominate your thinking and political response. You haven't, for example, mentioned a single example of any lefty doing anything like that. You haven't recognized the NRA's behaviors. Your silly claim that "democrats" (capitalization intended?) are "particularly prone" to that universal and reliably rightwing Republican employed tactic has no "logic and reason" behind it - or any evidence either. it's some propaganda bs you picked up from wingnut talk radio, would be my guess. Or Fox? They broadcast stuff like that a lot.

 

So you planning on doing that' date=' any time soon?

 

I have. My issue is with the method the gun controlling administrative left is using to exploit a tragedy. [/quote'] You quite obviously haven't, as proven by your nonsense about the "administrative left". The current administration is center right, and the US left overall is not predominantly focused on gun control (the left has a long tradition of favoring gun rights, clear back to Marx and Engels). Why do you not know these basic facts?

 

but on topic:

You are reducing the rights to bear arms when you limit magazine sizes' date=' and ban rifles that look "assault-like" and skeery... [/quote'] No more than when you ban carrying grenades and rpgs. That basic principle is long established, fully agreed to by the whole of US society (including every Republican president on record), consistent with the 2nd Amerndment, and not some recent imposition by - what was your bizarre Fox term - "lefties and democrats".

 

So is universal background checks - reading the poll numbers, apparently most Americans thought they were already in place (92% favor them, only 56% think gun control laws should be tightened - at least that 36% difference apparently thought they were already in force).

 

So aside from wingnut emotional responses to Obama's press conferences, are there any objections to the proposed gun control measures emerging from Biden's task force?

 

btw:

I was curious after reading that what the relationship between the number of guns and gun related deaths was,
That frame wrongfoots the question: the issue would not be gun violence compared with gun prevalence, but violence in general compared with gun prevalence. Violence is not bad [because it employs a gun, implying it would be better otherwise.
Edited by overtone
Link to post
Share on other sites
You quite obviously haven't, as proven by your nonsense about the "administrative left". The current administration is center right, and the US left overall is not predominantly focused on gun control (the left has a long tradition of favoring gun rights, clear back to Marx and Engels). Why do you not know these basic facts?

 

What did Engels have to say about gun rights? Can you quote something? I get the impression you're like a stone skipping across the water bumping into facts as you find them. Please prove me wrong. Nobody mentions Engels unless they're referring to the communist manifesto, but I've read it and gun rights aren't mentioned in the communist manifesto, so what the hell are you referring to. I'm not sure you have any idea. What did Engels say about gun rights?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

btw: That frame wrongfoots the question: the issue would not be gun violence compared with gun prevalence, but violence in general compared with gun prevalence. Violence is not bad [because it employs a gun, implying it would be better otherwise.

 

If the number of guns affected the rates of total violent crimes, you would expect to see that relationship mimicked when looking solely at the rate of gun-related crimes (though I was really only looking at one aspect of this in my data). In any case, the studies that I mentioned in my final paragraph did in fact look at both.

 

Your last sentence touches on the issue of method substitution, but it doesn't negate my point. Where the question is, 'do more guns cause more violence,' the underlying common-sense premise is that an increase in the number of deadly weapons begets an increase in the number of crimes using those deadly weapons. To illustrate this a little better, we can assume a case where there is a positive association between gun ownership and violent crime rate over time, but a negative or lack of correlation to that and the rate of gun related crimes. In this instance, it would rather difficult to come up with an argument to support the notion that the higher incidence of gun ownership resulted in the increase of violent crimes. One reasonable explanation might be that the surge in gun ownership is in fact a result of the inflation in violent crime, rather than the reverse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it's an invalid comparison, as I noted. W's behavior while signing actual bills establishing authoritarian impositions on our civil liberties, is not comparable with Obama's theatrics at staged press conferences. You were comparing apples and oranges, and denying that one of them grows on trees.

 

And the body of your posting here is simply reiteration of that basic and fundamentally invalid comparison. An emotional and irrational comparison, btw.

 

What you posted was an accusation that "one side" of the issue was doing that, and not the other. And further, that that circumstance was some kind of argument against the actual legislation proposed.

 

You are only offended by "one side" of your imaginary division. If you were equally offended by whatever side was using irrational and emotional appeals, you would be lambasting the NRA for their scummy TV ads involving children (two different posters have brought them to your attention) and cooperating with us lefties in getting some decent politics done. Instead, you make yourself an emotional and irrational obstacle to reasonable and effective government altogether.

 

So I was correct in pointing out that you were posting delusion, and comparing fantasy with reality as if they were equivalent supports for opinion. How does that indicate a lack of understanding on my part?

And as repeatedly observed, with examples ranging from 9/11 to the recent NRA ads exploiting children (Obama's and others), this is a delusion of yours taht you have allowed to dominate your thinking and political response. You haven't, for example, mentioned a single example of any lefty doing anything like that. You haven't recognized the NRA's behaviors. Your silly claim that "democrats" (capitalization intended?) are "particularly prone" to that universal and reliably rightwing Republican employed tactic has no "logic and reason" behind it - or any evidence either. it's some propaganda bs you picked up from wingnut talk radio, would be my guess. Or Fox? They broadcast stuff like that a lot.

 

You quite obviously haven't, as proven by your nonsense about the "administrative left". The current administration is center right, and the US left overall is not predominantly focused on gun control (the left has a long tradition of favoring gun rights, clear back to Marx and Engels). Why do you not know these basic facts?

 

but on topic:

No more than when you ban carrying grenades and rpgs. That basic principle is long established, fully agreed to by the whole of US society (including every Republican president on record), consistent with the 2nd Amerndment, and not some recent imposition by - what was your bizarre Fox term - "lefties and democrats".

 

So is universal background checks - reading the poll numbers, apparently most Americans thought they were already in place (92% favor them, only 56% think gun control laws should be tightened - at least that 36% difference apparently thought they were already in force).

 

So aside from wingnut emotional responses to Obama's press conferences, are there any objections to the proposed gun control measures emerging from Biden's task force?

 

btw: That frame wrongfoots the question: the issue would not be gun violence compared with gun prevalence, but violence in general compared with gun prevalence. Violence is not bad [because it employs a gun, implying it would be better otherwise.

Ok, so you're *not* going to support your false claim....we won't be doing any discussing until you do. When you do, I'll be happy to address this nonsensical mess of a post of yours. Clearly, you are only here for combat with your over the top criticism of all ideas and beliefs that are not yours.

 

I'll still play though once you support your false claim that the NRA trots out victims and uses them to advance their agenda. The latest NRA ad about Obama and his kids might hurt a little, but it's child protection that is at issue and it's standard criticism of government hypocrisy...you know, like how republican congressmen are hypocrites for their fancy government healthcare while they deny such to the poor by voting against Obamacare? Or all the republican congressmen that get caught being gay after standing against same-sex marriage? Yeah, it's personal, but that didn't stop the hypocrisy charge and no one was crying about how "repugnant" it was.

 

Show me the victim exploitation by the NRA, as you claimed "both sides" do it...show me the emotional propaganda theatre.

 

Meanwhile, here's Matt Welch putting it much better than I ever could...

 

http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/18/white-house-gun-policy-like-ignorant-emo

 

 

 

It is bad enough to make hasty and inappropriate legislation in the name of dead kids. It is bad enough to constantly formulate and sell policy via individual anecdote. It's bad enough to draft pre-Tween children for the

. But all three at once? The word that comes to mind is infantile.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
What did Engels have to say about gun rights? Can you quote something? I get the impression you're like a stone skipping across the water bumping into facts as you find them. Please prove me wrong. Nobody mentions Engels unless they're referring to the communist manifesto' date=' but I've read it and gun rights aren't mentioned in the communist manifesto, [/quote'] This quote, and there are several less polemical on the topic, IIRC is from the Communist Manifesto:
"The arming of the whole proletariat with rifles' date=' guns, and ammunition should be carried out at once [and'] the workers must ... organize themselves into an independent guard, with their own chiefs and general staff. ..
It's not the one I best remember (from a letter Engels wrote to somebody extolling the protection from tyranny and other benefits that the working class could obtain by arming themselves, without the canned vocabulary of "proletariat" etc), but it's the first one I could find - and you did mention the Manifesto.

 

Yes, I do bump into facts as I find them. Facts are often helpful, don't you think? Marx and Engels were firm advocates of arming the citizenry of the industrial State. Many lefties are - for different reasons, often.

 

I'll still play though once you support your false claim that the NRA trots out victims and uses them to advance their agenda.
I did not make that claim. You have changed your earlier wording significantly. My claim - posted above' date=' if you need to review it - was in response to your original wording and is adequately supported by the TV ad exploiting children and appealing to emotion thereby, the existence of which has been pointed out to you four or five times now by at least two different posters. Furthermore, it's a trivial matter, and you should not use it to deflect the discussion. The actual point was simply that your framing of the matter (as "two sides" only one of them using such tactics) is a useless and misleading delusion. The world is not divided so, and in particular your bizarre notion of "lefties" and "democrats" is straight from the book of wingnut.

 

The use of emotional appeal for propaganda, contravening reason or logic, (using children sometimes, as recently) , has been a tactic of the NRA for your entire life.

 

If the number of guns affected the rates of total violent crimes, you would expect to see that relationship mimicked when looking solely at the rate of gun-related crimes
But that's the opposite direction of argument. The gun control advocates would want to discover, not assume, that guns boosted violence overall. That this case is hard to make is my explanation for the almost universal retreat into considering gun violence only - which I think is an invalid basis for their usual implications.
Edited by overtone
Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's the opposite direction of argument. The gun control advocates would want to discover, not assume, that guns boosted violence overall. That this case is hard to make is my explanation for the almost universal retreat into considering gun violence only - which I think is an invalid basis for their usual implications.

 

Right. So now read the second paragraph of my post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This quote, and there are several less polemical on the topic, IIRC is from the Communist Manifesto: It's not the one I best remember (from a letter Engels wrote to somebody extolling the protection from tyranny and other benefits that the working class could obtain by arming themselves, without the canned vocabulary of "proletariat" etc), but it's the first one I could find - and you did mention the Manifesto.

 

No, that quote isn't the communist manifesto and it isn't Engels. It's Marx (as cited by somebody else) from 1850. A google search would have told you that. Listen, it isn't the point of fact I care about. Maybe there is a quote of Engels somewhere on gun rights. I have no idea. But, I could tell by the condescending way you said it that you have no idea either. You did it again in your quote up there. You said "as far as I recall" in reference to the Communist Manifesto. Nobody here is fooled. You haven't read it. It undercuts your position to imply that you have.

 

It doesn't much matter. Obviously leftists have supported armed rebellion. You could have made that point without beating your chest with facts that you'd barely accidentally bumped into on the internet is all.

Edited by Iggy
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's not exactly conclusive and I'm sure anyone here could poke a dozen holes in it, but it's at least a suggestion that the number of guns on a national scale and the rate of gun related homicides are not related.

 

To my mind, that's fairly conclusive evidence to support the notion that a ban on guns or limiting the number of guns would be rather ineffective.

 

The glorification of violence and guns may very well be a large part of the problem, which leads me to think that perhaps this is an issue of social control rather than gun control.

Since very few are advocating the reduction of all guns, I think the most important piece of information from your data is that the US is an outlier. The US isn't just one monolithic place, if it was, we could conclude that they just can't handle guns apparently. "We crazy" We don't pass the background check!

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/#

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

 

The second link above provides gun murders, assaults and robberies by state. At the high end is DC, which is really a city and at the low end is Hawaii, which is an island far enough from the insanity(although they get internet and same movies out there). Next 3 on the high list are Lousiana, Mississippi and South Carolina. Not only do they have the highest gun murder rates, they increased from 2010 to 2011. So maybe people can study the differences between these high rate states and low rate states like New Hampshire, Rhode Island and South Dakota.

 

If we were to look within states and then within cities, I'm sure we would find relatively small pockets where most of the violence occurs. The social ills that plague the US: drugs, gangs, race disparity, domestic violence, etc. will probably be a significant root cause to much of this problem.

 

So, long term I do think we somehow need to tackle these problems. Do we tackle them by making sure the wealthy keep as much of the wealth as they can and tell the poor to grow a pair, try harder, go to church and buy more guns? I don't think so. These issues will unfortunately be with us for a long time to come and there will be just as much division as to how to tackle them or if we should tackle them.

 

The issues above, while they probably are the majority of the problem, are different from the random mass killings. These killings do grip national attention, but I don't think it is completely unfounded. Incidents are resulting in larger death counts. And they aren't criminals or necessarily people with a history of mental health issues. Gangbangers shooting at each other with handguns is a completely different issue than someone mowing down children with a semi-machine gun.

 

It makes sense to question why people need weapons of mass destruction in the first place. I think Obama's proposals make alot of sense and try to tackle the issue from several fronts. Obama's proposals are not trying to reduce the total number of guns. He is trying to limit assault weapons. People can still have their guns for protection or hunting.

 

I'd certainly be interested to see some research in the area. If I'm not mistaken, part of the reforms proposed by Obama include funding to investigate if any such relationship exists and methods to counteract it.

And trying to study the problem will get stiff fights from the NRA, since they will see it as an attack. They know the answer already - more guns.

Edited by john5746
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Since very few are advocating the reduction of all guns, I think the most important piece of information from your data is that the US is an outlier. The US isn't just one monolithic place, if it was, we could conclude that they just can't handle guns apparently. "We crazy" We don't pass the background check!

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/#

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

 

The second link above provides gun murders, assaults and robberies by state. At the high end is DC, which is really a city and at the low end is Hawaii, which is an island far enough from the insanity(although they get internet and same movies out there). Next 3 on the high list are Lousiana, Mississippi and South Carolina. Not only do they have the highest gun murder rates, they increased from 2010 to 2011. So maybe people can study the differences between these high rate states and low rate states like New Hampshire, Rhode Island and South Dakota.

 

If we were to look within states and then within cities, I'm sure we would find relatively small pockets where most of the violence occurs. The social ills that plague the US: drugs, gangs, race disparity, domestic violence, etc. will probably be a significant root cause to much of this problem.

 

So, long term I do think we somehow need to tackle these problems. Do we tackle them by making sure the wealthy keep as much of the wealth as they can and tell the poor to grow a pair, try harder, go to church and buy more guns? I don't think so. These issues will unfortunately be with us for a long time to come and there will be just as much division as to how to tackle them or if we should tackle them.

 

The issues above, while they probably are the majority of the problem, are different from the random mass killings. These killings do grip national attention, but I don't think it is completely unfounded. Incidents are resulting in larger death counts. And they aren't criminals or necessarily people with a history of mental health issues. Gangbangers shooting at each other with handguns is a completely different issue than someone mowing down children with a semi-machine gun.

 

It makes sense to question why people need weapons of mass destruction in the first place. I think Obama's proposals make alot of sense and try to tackle the issue from several fronts. Obama's proposals are not trying to reduce the total number of guns. He is trying to limit assault weapons. People can still have their guns for protection or hunting.

 

And trying to study the problem will get stiff fights from the NRA, since they will see it as an attack. They know the answer already - more guns.

Quote: You say people can still have their guns for protection or hunting? Tell that to the people of Chicago

Link to post
Share on other sites
No' date=' that quote isn't the communist manifesto and it isn't Engels. It's Marx (as cited by somebody else) from 1850. A google search would have told you that. Listen, it isn't the point of fact I care about. Maybe there is a quote of Engels somewhere on gun rights. I have no idea. But, I could tell by the condescending way you said it that you have no idea either. You did it again in your quote up there. You said "as far as I recall" in reference to the Communist Manifesto. Nobody here is fooled. You haven't read it. It undercuts your position to imply that you have. [/quote'] Well, I have read the Communist Manifesto - long enough ago to get confused about whether I picked up something from it or something else related, but not enough to have your brand of personal speculation "undercut my position".

 

What, btw, do you think is my position, that something like that would undercut it?

 

Maybe there is a quote of Engels somewhere on gun rights. I have no idea. But' date=' I could tell by the condescending way you said it that you have no idea either. [/quote'] Well, you're wrong about that. So maybe when you think you can tell stuff about other people in that manner you are - how is it put - full of shit ?

 

Now I apparently have to actually dig out the Engels quote that most struck me on this issue, not for any thread relevant reason but just to deal with someone who thinks no one ever refers to Engels except in reference to the Communist Manifesto? - crap. That's going to take a while, it's going to be a lot of work, and it won't change the actual point here in the slightest - which is that there is a long, long tradition of lefties (and you can't get any more left than Marx, eh?) supporting the keeping and bearing of arms by regular folks - in Marx's case (and Engels, if I can find it, since it obviously doesn't exist otherwise) for the express purpose of resisting State tyranny, in perfect alignment with the NRA and many of the gun rights advocates here.

 

So any attempt to frame the issue as a "both sides" contrast between people who support gun rights and mistrust "the government", on the one hand, and "lefties and democrats", on the other, is a delusion. Agreed?

 

To emphasize: You apparently agree completely with that point. Yes?

 

Although you are certainly welcome to dislike my condescending attitude (which you are doing nothing to reduce, btw) focusing on my character flaws is not going to deal with the arguments and points made there. INowhere is anyone arguing that my virtues are the guarantee of the validity of what I am saying, or the force of my reasoning. And it's tiresome - don't we get enough of that from the wingnut crowd? Isn't that their dominant tactic of argument?

 

Right. So now read the second paragraph of my post.
And so? The problem is not that the argument is not supported. The problem is that it's the wrong argument.

 

Since very few are advocating the reduction of all guns' date=' [/quote'] That is unfortunately not so. A great many people - entire political factions, including some with access to power - are advocating exactly that. And many of the arguments used by those who claim they are not, directly imply that motive (the suicide issue, the danger to children in the house, the public health approach, and so forth). And that worries people who want to keep and bear arms. It threatens them.
Edited by overtone
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I have read the Communist Manifesto - long enough ago to get confused about whether I picked up something from it or something else related, but not enough to have your brand of personal speculation "undercut my position".

 

Fair enough.

 

What, btw, do you think is my position, that something like that would undercut it?

 

Your position? It would have to be fantastically close to mine if I minded you undercutting it.

 

Well, you're wrong about that. So maybe when you think you can tell stuff about other people in that manner you are - how is it put - full of shit ?

 

Now I apparently have to actually dig out the Engels quote that most struck me on this issue, not for any thread relevant reason but just to deal with someone who thinks no one ever refers to Engels except in reference to the Communist Manifesto? - crap.

 

No, you really don't have to find one. The answer I feared you'd give to post 457 was, "Go to hell. Engels participated in armed rebellion. That's what he had to say about gun rights! He held the guns!". Someone who throws Engels name out in order to say "don't you know these basic facts", and claims to have read the Communist Manifesto as they incorrectly quote it probably should get that basic fact right.

 

It's a cheap argument tactic I know. You used Engels name to show how little someone knew, so someone did the same in return. It's all good fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your position? It would have to be fantastically close to mine if I minded you undercutting it.
On second thought, I'm going to gnaw on that a bit.

 

The people who got basic facts wrong, inexcusably wrong in fact, were you, and Paranoia above. I didn't. The only thing I got wrong was mixing up two different sources of classic lefty stuff, both of which I had read and either one of which supported my point in the thread perfectly. (Not the "good fun" point from you - the relevant argument in the thread).

 

Paranoia is wrong about the entire frame of the US political discourse, the overall setup of the world as relevant to this thread. That's a basic fact.

 

You were wrong about Engels gun views and expression, which might make sense if you haven't run across them and share aspects of Paranoia's take on "lefties" (since it doesn't necessarily imply you are wrong about "lefties" in the US currently), but were also wrong in presuming I was referring to the Communist Manifesto (for no good reason) and in error about what I had and had not read in my life - and here we part company from the excusable and enter the realm of "basic" as well as wrong.

 

Because there was no way for you to know what you claimed to know, about me, and no good reason for the topic to arise. You were probably and presumably wrong, in other words, and could easily have recognized that with a moment's thought. And no, that's not in good fun. It's too damn common in this situation.

 

Because this is also wrong, and basic:

It's a cheap argument tactic I know. You used Engels name to show how little someone knew, so someone did the same in return.
Uh, no, they didn't. You didn't. Not a bit. Because you didn't show how little I knew - you presumed, an unforced and illegitmately motivated error, and made false assertions based on that invalid presumption, and then dealt in irrelevant (to the motivating thread discussion) personal insult . That is parallel to - the "same thing" as - Paranoia's display of arrogant ignorance supporting falsehood based insult regarding "lefties", and does not resemble my posting in any respect except possibly the "condescension". I presumed nothing about anyone, dealt in no irrelevancies, and made no such errors of basic fact.

 

You did.

Edited by overtone
Link to post
Share on other sites

On second thought, I'm going to gnaw on that a bit.

 

I've always preferred doing my gnawing quietly.

 

Lenny Bruce once said "satire is tragedy plus time". You keep reading my satire as tragedy, and there's no time to spend on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You keep reading my satire as tragedy,

So you were actually satirizing somebody? Who - Brit Hume? David Brooks? Sean Hannity? Paranoia from here (doesn't work - too farfetched)?

 

No, no backfilling - you weren't joking, and can't you take a joke doesn't cut it.

 

 

You can't plan for stupid...


Oh, I think you can...ever work in manufacturing?

You can proof for fools somewhat, but it's dangerous to think you can foolproof.

 

And there's a human as well as bureaucratic tendency to double down on the foolproofing, when early attempts fail. That slope to tyranny does exist, and has been slid before - the wariness of those disturbed by the invocation of child protectiuon and other such motives difficult to curb, those who look at the intrasystem agenda, sources of influence, and sheer size, of the bureaucracy about to be launched a little way down this slope by emotionally driven short-horizon enthusiasts, is easy to understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you were actually satirizing somebody? Who - Brit Hume? David Brooks? Sean Hannity? Paranoia from here (doesn't work - too farfetched)?

 

No, no backfilling - you weren't joking, and can't you take a joke doesn't cut it.

 

Unbelievable to you that someone could be speaking in overtones?

 

I have time so I'll spell it all out... I have strongly supported gun ownership in this thread as a means of keeping tyranny at bay. I don't think you remember saying "as Iggy pointed out" earlier in the thread as if I was your greatest ally. The difference is that I approach the issue from the left because that is my background. Leftists fighting fascism are the examples of necessary gun use that I've given in this topic. I'm sure you dream in shades of Red Dawn, and that's fine for the purposes of this discussion too.

 

When I said "you give me the impression of someone like a stone skipping across the water bumping into facts as you find them" it should have been clear. The way you were beating your chest with Engels name and trying to beat someone else over the head with it made me want to thoroughly show that you had no business throwing the name around.

 

The way you failed to cite a source, failed to correctly quote the Communist Manifesto, and failed to know that Engels actually held the guns, is exactly what I wanted from you. I wanted to show that you have no business throwing the name around.

 

I care because I can identify with Marxism and I support gun rights. Do you get it?

 

"What did Engels have to say about gun rights" means "You have no freaking idea what Engels had to say about guns or why he said it, so please get back on your side of the aisle". Do you get it?

 

It's not a name you get to throw around with arrogance. Maybe if you knew more about the guy, but you're far too right, and far too uninformed about the left of the 1800's to be doing it. I hope you get all that.

Edited by Iggy
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.