Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's not at all what we are claiming. We are saying Biden is making an already bad problem worse with shit energy policies.
I started a thread on the January 6th hearings where the committee is showing piece by piece how the former president of the United States and current Republican party front runner for 2024 tried to end the American experiment by seizing control of the US government against the will of the voters, and all you wanted to talk about was gas prices.
Now you seem to be suggesting that when though Biden made things worse, we all know it still would have been bad anyway.
This is why I have a problem taking you and your cohorts here seriously.
Coal pointed to more than 5 specific things and you rebutted none of them. Guess I will wait too.
I started this thread asking specifically for anyone rambling on about Biden and gas prices to explain what they take issue with and explain *what impact these actions have had*. That last part is the part that actually matters. It's also the part Coal and everyone else here left out. Address the OP and I'll respond.
I'm not interested in your Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You guys are the ones using gas prices as the end all be all reason to vote out Biden to the point where we should ignore the fact that the opposition is trying to end democracy. Make sense of you're BS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Do a control+f for what I quoted in what you linked, and get back to me.
Or, you could just engage in the dialog. Nothing I said was complicated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You clearly don’t know how the oil market works. It runs on futures. As soon as Biden got into office everyone knows the costs to transport that oil will increase. To recoop the losses they would face, they have to increase the prices now.
So your argument is that gas prices are high because investors saw Biden get elected and went into a frenzy, and if we elect Trump the investors will calm down and gas prices will return to normal. Is that right?
Supply and Demand? Don’t decrease supply and prices won’t go high. Basic economics really
How has Biden decreased supply? Be specific and quantify how much it's decreased as well as how much this had driven up today's oil prices. I'll wait.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CoolApe
However, I concede that the immediate inflation is not caused by Biden's policies.
But that's my point. We can debate the future of energy and what we should be doing about it, I'm responding to those who are claiming that gas prices are high because of Joe Biden, which is why we should have voted for Donald Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
The green new deal? It isn't law, it doesn't even give specifics. It's a vague outline on how the US should approach green energy and inequality. How is this relevant?
You talk about inflation and how it impacts the US dollar but fail to mention that inflation is also a global issue and the US isn't experiencing inflation any higher than the rest of the world
You talk about land leases but this is also hardly relavant - companies have to lease the land, put their investments into it and start production. This takes years, probably a half decade before any of it hits the market. Maybe in 2025 you can blame this for high gas prices, it hardly has anything to do with today
The US's decision to not import Russian oil is relavant and significant, but that's a fast now nuanced argument. If your position is that we should continue to fund the Ukrainian genocide in favor of paying a dollar or so less at the pump then that's fine, own it. Don't just oriented this is sheer incompetence.
I know you gave more then just that, bit you failed to give the main thing I asked for... The impact. You and others claim these high gas prices is because of Biden. Not because of inflation (a global issue), not because of the supply chain and COVID's complete disruption to it (also a global issue) and you do this whole ignoring that the entire world is dealing with had prices just as high as us.
So support your claims; quantify the impact Biden has had and compare it to whatever you think Trump would have done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The government by threat of force assumes priority over these services and coerces payment, whether one consumes them or not. The argument that one is therefore financially obligated to this government is absurd!
Do you believe you benefit from the system you live in? Yes or No?
I claim a right to the products of my time and labor
Of course, we all do. The question here is how much of your product is due to you're time and labor? If you are an Uber driver for example, you make a living transporting people on roads the rest of us paid to build. Do you believe you are therefore entitled to 100% of the revenue generated from this?
Really? Says who?Says the arrangement between me and the previous owner.
Why should I or anyone else respect that? What gives you and this previous "owner" the right to proclaim the land which you sit on to be yours now? If I come along and manage to forcefully take it, what is to stop me from being the new owner?
There has virtually always been government in recorded history, so there's little to no sample data.
Exactly, because every civilization that came before us has already figured this out. Human nature does not work the way you wish it did. Products and services for the public good are not produced by individuals acting on their own individual behalf. They're produced by individuals working within an entity designed to benefit the public good.
This is common sense.
If however you intend to use this as a pretext to an argument where it's suggested that "Without government..." the level of infrastructure and coordination to meet basic needs of which you assume I take advantage would not be around or possible, not only will I not entertain your argumentum ad ignorantiam, but also I will demand your satisfy your onus and prove this to be the case.
You are the one claiming you shouldn't have to pay into any of this despite continuing to enjoy the benefits of it. That argument can only make sense if any of the things I'm talking about would have arisen without a government. So the onus is on you as well. Support your claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Arguing that one is obligated to pay the government taxes is like arguing one is obligated to pay a local mob "protection money."
If I am actively accepting the local mobs protection, them yes I am obligated to pay into it. If on the other hand they are protecting me without my knowledge or consent and I am doing nothing I wouldn't have done anyway then I am not obligated.
That's not remotely what's happening here. You will continue to drive in public roads, use public water systems, use the electric grid, etc. etc. etc., all while arguing that you shouldn't have to pay for it. That's absurd. Since when do you have a right to use that which others worked for and paid for for free?
I own my property.
Really? Says who? The same governing authority you reject as illigitimate?
Without the government - funded by your tax dollars - declaring the land you claim to be yours, the only thing that says you own it is your own ability to forcefully defend it from being taken. So if I come along with a bigger gun it's now my property.
Yet another benefit you enjoy while arguing you shouldn't have to pay for it...
none of the services you've listed is limited to government expertise
That's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it could have arisen without a tax funded government, that is how it got there.
And I've asked you this before but will try again... Is there a place anywhere in human history that accomplished the level of infrastructure and coordination to meet basic needs as you take advantage of everyday that arose without a governing authority?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
NO ONE OWES ANYONE ANYTHING--unless delineated and stipulated explicitly in the terms of a willfully entered contract.
No one is claiming in any moralistic sense that you owe anyone anything. The point is that you continue to enjoy and take advantage of everything brought to society as a result of tax dollars while arguing that you have no moral obligation to pay into it.
If you want to argue that we shouldn't have taxes, so be it. Move somewhere where they don't have public roads or a public infrastructure system that the rest of society paid for to ensure everyone can enjoy the basic necessities in life. Somehow I suspect you won't.
nothing would please me more than for you to withdraw the proverbial hand you believe feeds me or anyone else
Complete strawman. This has nothing to do with the idea that anyone is feeding you. This is about the fact that the means by which you feed yourself was put in place by the very system you rail against as immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
That's not what I asked. Do you pay every person or establishment who or that has ever had an positive impact in your life a periodical stipend?
Individually? No. What does that have to do with anything I've argued?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
No tax makes sense to me.
And yet you still want to turn on a faucet and have water come out, or flip a light switch and watch as electricity currents run through, or get in your car and drive on actual roads, all of which were made possible thanks to the infrastructure our tax dollars put in place. But when it's your turn to contribute to the society you have taken advantage of since birth, suddenly that's an issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Do you pay periodical stipends to your parents/custodians, siblings, teachers/educators, restaurateurs who may have fed you on occasion, retail stores, barbers, or for that matter, anyone who has given you advice?
Yes, I pay my taxes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Sounds like a disagreement over rhetoric than substance.
That's why I started by saying I wouldn't use that language.
Rhetoric matters, people do not vote with the left side of their brains.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Can you provide some actual evidence that any of the things you listed made a noticable difference? Cause it sounds like you are just parroting talking points you heard on Fox news with no idea what you're talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
I think "deserving" is the wrong way of looking at it and will certainly tune people out of you use that kind of language. The issue here for me is the fact that while these individuals in most cases accomplished a great deal, they only did so within the systems and infrastructure that was already in place making it all possible so their actual contributions to society do not warrant the obscene wealth they have accumulated. That doesn't mean we should take it away from them for the sake of not letting them have it, but that we as a society are better off with a system that rewards people according to their contributions, so the greater good argument is perfectly valid here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CoolApe
He also shutdown the keystone oil pipeline.
Keystone is a transfer pipeline, not a means of production and it wasn't even set to be completed till 2023.
Gas prices would of gone up to lesser degree under Trump. I don't think he could of halted oil inflation because the economy's demand for oil was surging upwards as it was recovering from Covid lockdowns, but it would of have been better under Trump. Obviously, Trump would never have halted oil and natural gas leases if he was re-elected into office in 2020.
What evidence do you have that this would have made any noticable difference?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Is this seriously the best argument you can make? Should the focus really be one of incessant excuses for why the world is burning on Biden's watch, and there's just nothing he could do?
I have made no argument so as usual, you are arguing with a figment of your imagination.
Biden either is or isn't reasponsible for gas prices and inflation. Whether he is or isn't is not an argument, it's a matter of fact. What we do with that fact is an entirely different question.
Funny how I started a thread on the January 6th hearings and all the Trumpers wanted to talk about was gas prices and inflation, so I create a thread on gas prices and inflation and they all vanish. Suddenly they're not interested. I wonder why.
Do you have any thoughts on the topic?
Created:
Posted in:
Do you think, seriously, that it was by accident that the right to bear arms was listed second only to the right to freely speak, think and communicate with the body politic?
No I don't, nor is this question relavant to the conversation. We're taking about what the amendment actually means, not it's level of importance.
Madison emphasized the importance of the American people's individual right to bear arms as a point of express contrast between the United States and "the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe," comprised of governments that "[we]re afraid to trust the people with arms," (quoting Federalist No. 46).
We are not reading the same Federalist No. 46:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.. . .Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
No where in this does he talk about the individuals right, and every single time he talks about the means by which the people would defend themselves from government overreach he specifically describes that defense as being carried out by an organized malitia with officers chosen by local governments.
Your quote above simply relates to the burden of achieving a militia that was, in fact, "well regulated." It has nothing whatsoever to do with any restraint on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Any such reading is absurd, to the point of being nonsensical.
I never said the quote talked about restraint on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, I pointed out how it is not addressing the individual at all. The amendment addresses the right of the organized malitia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Jan 6 commission had zero testimony or information regarding who was responsible for the Capitol having 1/8 the security detail of the Superbowl.
January 6th passes by every election cycle without incident and is hardly even reported on. It's a boring procedural day that no one ever pays attention to. Can you think of something different this time around as to why they would have needed elevated security?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You clearly didn’t read the transcript. He literally say he’d provide the number of ballots he thought were fraudulent. At the very least Raffensberger could find the 11k out of thousands.
I read the transcript and listened to the entire call. Here is the one sentence that all off your spin will never change:
"All I want to do is this, I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have"
You can try gaslighting us all day, problem is we understand how English works. "All I want to do" tells us everything we need to know. Trump didn't care about an accurate number, he cared about winning the state and tried to use the power of his office to pull it off. Using the power of your office for your personal gain is the literal definition of corruption. Pretend you don't understand that all you want, it still is.
Trump didn’t tell rioters to storm the Capitol either. They did it of their own volition.
They literally said they were doing it because Trump told them too. Literally.
And still he’s more popular today than right after J6. How much is it gonna take to get it into your brain that it doesn’t matter.
Whether it matters is an entirely different issue. Let me repeat:
These are entirely different issues. One is the culmination of decades of tension between different ethnic groups within our society. The other was the culmination of months of a president doing everything he can to maintain power despite being voted out of office by the people. Do you understand that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Since you missed this the first time...
Here's a simple question for you... One thing we already knew but became crystal clear during these hearings is that while the US capitol was being broken into after capitol police were beaten into submission and congress was forced to stop certifying the election results and evacuate the building... The president of the United States did absolutely nothing. Not one phone call to the secretary of defense, the DOJ, any of the state governors who had the national guard on stand by... No one. What are your thoughts on this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
If you read what I wrote, I explained why he said the 11,000 number. It’s to demonstrate that it’s easy to do that. But again, it debunks the narrative that Trump wanted Raffensberger to forge votes for Trump
Yes, your explanation is because he was delusional enough to think he won the state, which I acknowledged and explained why that is completely irrelevant.
Again, if Trump actually cared about the integrity of the count he would have demanded a full recount with provisions in place to make sure *all* votes were counted properly. He didn't, because he didn't give a shit about the accuracy of the count. His only concern is that they "find" enough votes for him to win. There is a phrase for that, it's called corrupt intent. Why is this so complicated?
They were at the direction of people like Maxine Waters. Insurrection at its finest
This is the kind of response that demonstrates how unserious and how much of a partisan hack you are. You know damn well that no one was out there protesting because Maxine Waters told them to.
Comparing J6 to the summer riots is just plain stupid because the concerns regarding them are entirely different. This is yet another whataboutism from Trumpers who are so wrapped up in their MAGA self identity that they can't stop for a second and use basic logic or common sense.
Again, the rioting that occurred that summer was mostly opportunism by people who couldn't care less about the issue the protesters were out there protesting. And in many cases it has been proven that the vandals were right wingers pretending to be protesting in order to rile people up against BLM.
As far as the anger that feuled all this, that originated from videos of cops being filmed in broad daylight, and those videos circulating through social media. In other words, it was a result of civil unrest. No one was instructing the rioters, they saw the videos with their own eyes and drew their own conclusions. It only became political after it started happening.
Contrast that with J6, where the rioters took over the US Capitol forcing congress to stop the certification of a presidential election and evacuate the building. Those rioters were not grass roots civil disobedience, they were there because the president of the United States summoned them there after spending months lying to them about a stolen election that everyone around him knew was complete bullshit the entire time. Unlike the summer riots, J6 was entirely manufactured by the person we as a nation trusted to protect and defend the constitution.
These are entirely different issues. One is the culmination of decades of tension between different ethnic groups within our society. The other was the culmination of months of a president doing everything he can to maintain power despite being voted out of office by the people. Do you understand that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It is absolutely valid to use them against the republican party because the party continues to treat them as if they were peaceful protesters taking selfiesThey were a million times more peaceful than the summer of love protestors
The summer of love protesters were not acting at the direction of the president of the United States
Created:
Posted in:
Would you like to take back your statement now? There were thousands of illegal ones, but he’s telling Brad you just have to find the margin he lost by lol, which is not hard. He’s not telling Brad to forge 11k votes for him lmaoo.
You did forget one quote;
"All I want to do is this, I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have"
Again, the charge is that he attempted to get the Georgia sec of state top declare him the victor by providing a false number. Even in your best case scenario where Trump is so detached from reality that he believes every conspiracy theory under the sun, there is still no where in this call where he asked for an accurate number. To ask for an accurate number would mean that Georgia "find" every vote for Biden missed as well. But he didn't, because all he cared about was 11,780.
This is as simple of a common sense concept as we'll ever see in law. Trump did not care about the integrity of the count, he cared about himself. Full stop. That is the definition of corrupt intent no matter how you try and spin it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
First it was Russia. Then it was Ukraine impeachment. The it was 25th Amendment. Then it was insurrection impeachment. Now it’s 14th Amendment. At some point you have to realize this is all a partisan witch-hunt.
Or, at some point you have to realize that this is how historically corrupt and damaging Trump was. History will show this, because every single one of these was valid and if it were Biden doing the same thing you would have all of the same reactions. But I suspect you know that already.
Here's a simple question for you... One thing we alteady knew but became crystal clear during these hearings is that while the US capitol was being broken into after capitol police were beaten into submission and congress was forced to stop certifying the election results and evacuate the building... The president of the United States did absolutely nothing. Not one phone call to the secretary of defense, the DOJ, any of the state governors who had the national guard on stand by... No one. What are your thoughts on this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
Started another thread on gas prices and inflation. Please save your whataboutisms for that thread. This is about the hearings.
Created:
Posted in:
Since gas prices and inflation are constant whataboutisms to almost every right winger when faced with damming facts about why Trump and the GOP should not be in control, I figure there should be a sperate thread on it.
To anyone claiming these are proof that voting for Biden and the democrats was the wrong move please answer the following:
1. Since these are both global issues, is Biden responsible for the issues world wide?
2. What exactly did Biden do to cause these? (Be specific and explain the actual impact)
3. What would Trump have done to prevent these should be have won in 2020? (Be specific and explain the actual impact)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
@ILikePie5
Most Democrats and most Republicans are in agreement that the actions of the crowd on January 6, 2021 were distasteful. But if the incident continues to be used as a brute cudgel against the Republican Party, then I will sooner call the Capitol stormers heroes and patriots.
It says quite a bit about your values and commitment to reason when your position on the capitol stormers is dictated by how democrats talk about them.
It is absolutely valid to use them against the republican party because the party continues to treat them as if they were peaceful protesters taking selfies and ignore the fact that everything they did was in response to and at the perceived direction of the former president, whom the party continues to emphatically support. If the party would seriously denounce not just what they did but more importantly the lies and actions that brought them to the Capitol then perhaps you'd have a point, till then they own this as they absolutely should.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So ironically you support preserving Democracy by allowing the incarceration of political opposition. Brilliant.
Allowing the political opposition to blatantly violate the law and then hide behind politics as if it were a sheild is every bit as partisan, and far worse. It's not the DOJ's fault that half the country is too stupid to realize that justice is about facts and not what team everyone plays for.
Bit this is what happens when we elect a narcissistic, vile, immature, ignoramus as our president. Turns out the implications are far more serious than tax cuts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Imagine being so pathologically partisan and fundamentally brainwashed into thinking that temporary inflation is more significant than a president or coup trying to overthrow the government and the results of an election in the United States lol. What an unfathomably stupid red herring.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Created:
Posted in:
4 pages in and not one post from a Trump supporter actually talking about the evidence or explaining why they would vote for him again despite the fact that the man literally tried to overthrow the United States government.
Why am I not surprised?
Created:
Posted in:
Curious to know what everyone's thoughts are. I'm also curious to know what Trump supporters think about the idea that he should be president again despite the evidence clearly showing his violation of his oath of office.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
No matter what party you are in, this should raise a red flag
"Kelley has been charged with knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, knowingly engaging in an act of physical violence against person or property in a restricted building or grounds and willfully injuring or committing any depredation against a property of the United States"
Not really. If I did these things is be arrested too. What would be concerning is if the DOJ decided not to prosecute because he decided to run for office.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
When you used Hilary Clinton's words to prove that the left's position is that you need to believe all women. If you get to anoint someone as the spokesperson then so do I
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
To have a militia implies that arms --- and not just any arms, but arms of sufficient force to repel an external invasion --- were meant to be held in private citizens' hands, at all times and without exception. According to the framers.
I'm not reading anything in the constitution nor federalist papers that supports the idea that any individual was to have the right you're implying.
The second amendment by emphasizing "a well regulated", which essentially meant "well organized" makes clear that this was not meant towards the individual. And in federalist 29 Hamilton states
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
Clearly, he was talking about individuals trained and dedicated to the malitia as being the target of this provision.
What else are you reading?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I don't know who MTG is, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Israelis had a secret weapon in orbit with lasers.
I know it wouldn't.
Marjorie Taylor Greene. And since she said it, this must be the political right's position
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Hillary Clinton actually did specially say "believe women" implying the presumption of innocence should be eradicated.
MTG said there were Jewish space lasers
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
You conceded that localized gun control laws fail, based on inflow of out of state firearms.You stated that concession...
It's not a concession, it's the central point of why we need federal gun legislation.
Your response to this is to dismiss all evidence and data
I don't dismiss the data, I'm telling you that before we can analyze the data we should be analyzing the tools we are using to evaluate it.
after acknowledging certain categories of evidence do not indicate past improvement
I don't know what this means, doesn't sound like anything I did
in favor of discussion that you think "address the core beliefs" of folks with opinions on these issues (which you define as outside the scope of anything constituting "evidence"). Not to change your position.And yet, you wonder why this approach cannot be taken seriously.
Getting down to the core differences between two people is the entire point of rational conversation
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Why do most people I come across either agree with the left on all of these issues or agree with the right on all these issues?
It's a very good question. So for all of the threads you have started on this, and all of the times you have declared or implied your superiority because you can "think for yourself" while proclaiming everyone that falls along typical right vs left lines to be mindless partisan hacks... Have you ever done any actual research on this?
I fall on the left side of almost every issue, including the ones listed. So do I not understand these issues? Am I just taking the positions I'm told? How do you even go about judging it? In all the threads I've seen from you I have yet to hear even an attempt at a serious analysis.
1) Believe women (which I agree with the right on).
That's not the left's position. Whether they should be believed is situational and based on evidence, the left wing position is that all women should be heard and taken seriously.
3) The Ukraine war (which I side with the right on)
What exactly is the "left" and "right" position on Ukraine?
Created:
-->
@Conservallectual
No, God has always existed. The universe did not.
Could you explain why the universe needs a creator but a god does not? Cause it sounds almost likes you're making up a rule and applying it to everyone else's claims but yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I enjoy that fact that not a single one of them could answer your question.
^^^
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Well, still no definition but that's a start.
Since you italicized "militia", would you care to define that in 1776 terms and help us understand the full context of this statement?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Who here does not think this crisis was a self-inflicted wound?
Of course it was. if our trade policies were such that it allowed for more competition then one factory shutting down after killing a few infants wouldn't have caused empty shelves nationwide.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
The “assault weapon” ban is largely symbolic. It outlaws weaponry based upon their appearance rather than their lethality.
So are you then in favor of amending it to focus on lethality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
lol, you didn't address shit. You asserted with no evidence.If you calculate all the deaths from non-gun mass killings in the past 20 years, it's far more than gun mass killings. By far.
The irony of proclaiming my argument invalid because it had no evidence, and then immediately asserting something without evidence...
But beyond that, I didn't assert anything. Learn to read. I asked you if you seriously believed every would-be mass shooter would, in the absence of being able to acquire a gun, turn to a 9/11 style plot to kill people. Questions don't require evidence, they require a response. Assuming you are a serious person of course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Seriously?
Refer to post 158 where I addressed this already and you skated around it inly to come full circle here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The point is many mass murderers deliberately refuse to use guns as a weapon of choice despite the availability of guns. That's a fact.
Then provide your citation. Strange that you didn't include it.
You might also want to explain what these supposed anti-gun mass murderers have to do with stopping the mass shooters we are seeing daily here in the US.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Have you noticed how every time you go down that path, wherein you bitch and moan about how much of an asshole you think I am, I always respond by treating you with even less respect than I did before?
No because I couldn't care less. I have no interest in gaining your respect, I am here in search of rational arguments that go against my position. I think of my time here basically as the tail end of the scientific method - peer review. How do I know if I am valid in my position? Because I put it out there and no one can show it to be wrong. So every time I read a post like this one, it just validates my position further. If you had an actual point to make you would make it, or at least someone would.
When you have evidence to support any probability of changing any outcome with respect to gun violence based on any policy you propose, you might be in a less worse position to at least say something passably coherent on the subject. But at this time, I have seen nothing whatsoever to indicate as much.
Evidence is that which supports a proposition. Statistics or any other real world examples on guns are like that blue/brown dress from a few years ago - we all look at the same thing and see something totally different. This is why I find going back and forth about statistics on guns pointless, we're both going to accept the ones that support our position and explain away the ones that don't.
Let's take gun laws in Chicago for example. Gun advocates swear that the strict laws combined with high gun crimes prove gun control doesn't work. But it doesn't. Gun laws mostly target gun sellers, making it harder for "bad guys" to acquire guns. But Chicago is very close to Indiana, so it's laws are useless because they can just drive a few miles south and purchase whatever they want. If anything this proves my point; Why Chicago and not NY? Because NY does not have such easy access anywhere near it.
So we can play the statistics game all day long, that will accomplish nothing. This is why I prefer to address the core beliefs that dictate where we fall on the more complex issues. Things like 'less guns = less gun violence', or 'making guns harder to get means the next would-be mass shooter is *less* likely to get his hands on one'. Gun advocates tend to avoid talking about these basic points, I suspect because they know they cannot make sense out of their core positions.
Now that we've established you have no idea what logical fallacies are
No, we haven't. You're just making shit up. I quoted your argument and explained twice now why it is not what you are claiming it is. You have nothing to say, so stop pretending you established anything.
This is what I find so amusing, I hear things like this said to me a lot on this site by you and your little cohorts, yet none of them ever take a moment to explain why. It is clearly one of those jabs thrown as you're running out the door because you know you can't back it up. It's rather childish. If you aren't going to back it up you could just say nothing.
Let me know when you have something substantive to add to this discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
911 didn't use guns.
Do you think every would-be mass murderer, if they didn't have access to guns would seek out 18 other like minded individuals, plan out an elaborate mass casualty event, spend months training for the job and then carry it out with precision?
No, of course it's not. This is just another unserious trolling comment to avoid having to put forward a post with some actual thought.
Created: