Total posts: 8,222
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I can do it, but only if I get one of the later games in Round 1.
If I somehow make Round 2, I’ll need one of the early games, ideally the first one.
If by some miracle I make finals, I’ll need to be subbed out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Smart guns as a technology could one day dominate the market. I have no problem with this either, as a 2A advocate.
You can say that we're a bunch of crybabies who never compromise, but all I see is non-stop crying from the left about the fact that we have them, and repeated pushes from the left to increase gun control measures the second we give them any compromise. If we're going to compromise, we need the left to honor the compromises and stop pushing for more.
My point here is, that at the end of the day, you and I could argue endlessly about who's crying and who's unwilling to compromise. None of it will be productive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
How many child murders before you consider gun control?
That assumes gun control is the answer. It's also an emotional argument when you consider how rare those events actually are. They are horrible, but to look at those events and say we need such sweeping policy changes is absurd. If you want a solution to these problems, we should examine the data rather than having the fearful response of "see gun, ban gun."
Says who? You're about equal with other developed nations on the crime index.
Are you talking about overall crime or gang violence here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
A nail gun. He was a carpenter, after all.
Anyway, if you want a simple answer, we are the first world country with the worst gang problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Gun violence in America isn’t that simple of an issue. There are many factors at play.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
And yet USA inexplicably has 5 times the murder rate of any first world country
And the data suggests it would be even worse if we got rid of guns.
If you're going to be passive-aggressive with comments like "imagine posting this," at least tag me next time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Yes, every gun death also has a 'presence of a gun' element to it.
Which becomes irrelevant when you address the human element. Again, with your scenario, the whole thing could've been prevented with better storage, and possibly better parenting.
The difference generally speaking is that gun safety advocates understand this full well and make no attempt to refute it. 2A advocates meanwhile often argue implicitly or explicitly that the presence of a gun is not the issue, that instead is all about the people involved.
You have yet to prove the latter thinking wrong.
More important, however, is your framing of the issue here. Your argument falsely pits the ideas of the 2nd Amendment and gun safety against each other when they, in fact, go hand-in-hand. The 2nd Amendment protects our right to bear arms, and gun safety advocacy tells us to be safe with the firearms we have the right to own.
Ideas of gun safety are the reason we have lock boxes and safeties, and why we practice trigger discipline and proper storage. They're the reason we keep our guns pointed at the floor or at the sky, and why we make sure to unload our guns before storing them. They're the reason for innovations in smart gun technology as well. They are not the reason we see calls for gun control legislation. That kind of legislation is from anti-2A ideals that posit humans cannot be safe with guns in the first place, therefore, such legislation is incompatible with ideas of gun safety.
In a similar vein, the 2A does not condone improper storage and technique with firearms, it only posits that we cannot trust the government to regulate those sorts of things (and guns in general). In fact, the words "well-regulated" found in the 2A are referring to the idea of proper gun training, not regulations on guns. This is because the whole 2A is based on the idea that any government that can disarm its people for the sake of power eventually will.
The fact that you can always find a person to blame (the parents in this example) is irrelevant to the fact that without a gun in the picture no child would have ended up dead. So when people say "guns don't kill people" that statement is just plain wrong in any meaningful sense.The two elements (the person and the gun) will always be present in every gun death. The 2A advocate strategy is to pretend only one is to blame and then argue that one should be the person and not the gun (because how do you blame an object?). That's just childish simpleton nonsense. We need to look at the whole picture.
If you want to look at the whole picture, we can look at what happens when we address improper gun safety to remove the specific human element causing the problem versus what happens when we address the fact that there was a gun in the house in the first place.
If we remove the gun from the household, we still have a child that does not know the danger of certain objects, and parents that cannot store dangerous objects properly. What is there to stop a child from harming or killing themselves or someone else with a kitchen knife, power tool, or something else? You can talk about how firearm deaths among children are more common than any of those, but that doesn't change the fact that the core issue still remains. You may have saved the child here, but it comes at the cost of having a gun to defend the household, and you've done nothing to negate the possibility of a different accident.
If you take improper storage out of the equation, the gun still exists, but the child never got to it in the first place. Furthermore, with proper storage involved it's safer to assume that other objects around the house would be stored properly. The same concept applies for better parenting. Here, the core issue is resolved. You have saved the child, you still have a gun to protect the household, and you've lowered the odds of another kind of incident.
Therefore, we can conclude that human behavior matters more than the presence of a gun.
It's at this point where you would probably talk about how much more common gun deaths among children are than knives and power tools. It is here, however, where I will point out that gun-related accidents that result in a child fatality are not as common as you think they are: You've made an inconsistency in your presentation of data (that I failed to catch last time I replied to you).
This whole hypothetical is about a child accessing a gun and killing someone with it in an accident. However, the data you've cited to prove that this is a more common issue includes other gun-related child fatalities that are not the result of the kind of accident you've described.
In 2020, around 6 per 100,000 children died as a result of firearm-related injury, putting firearm-related injury as the #1 cause of death among children. That much is true. However, this statistic is almost completely comprised of homicides and suicides, incidents that are not what you've described here. This is important because these things are significantly more difficult to prevent by removing guns from the equation than an accident like you've described. A murderer will use other weapons for murder (that being gracious in assuming they won't obtain contraband firearms) and a suicidal person has ample other methods as well.
The other issue with blaming the parents is that there was no malice involved here, just irresponsibility. But human beings are inherently irresponsible, so while the criticism is valid in any individual scenario, it is not a valid argument when we're debating public policy. The argument there is essentially that human beings need to stop being human beings.
Humans will always be human beings. On that, we agree. To say that we cannot significantly reduce these incidents through education, however, is incorrect. As I cited in my last reply, a study found that a good fire safety course can significantly reduce incidents where children start fires. Common sense would tell us that a good driving course helps to prevent accidents as well (need I go find a study for it?). The same logic can be applied here: Proper gun education will result in a decline in these types of incidents. No gun control needed.
If someone urgently needs a gun that is all the more reason to not sell it to them. That's literally the point of a mandatory waiting period.
I suspect you're saying this because you think someone who urgently needs a gun is suicidal, or of the criminal element. This is only half of the truth. Consider the fact that there are many people who urgently need a gun because of crime in their neighborhood, or a threat they may have received. Should these people who are trying to get guns for self-defense be forced to wait for weeks, sometimes even months, to be able to defend themselves?
Again, the criminal or suicidal person had ample other methods. The people who are in these situations don't, since criminals don't follow gun laws. These laws only create scenarios where a person feels forced to turn to the black market to get their hands on a gun, or put themselves at greater risk. And no, you can't expect to have a police officer to guard your house every night. The saying is every bit as true as it is commonly spoken: When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.
Everything we do is a result of a cost/benefit analysis. Guns are a contentious issue because they are a frequent cause of unnecessary deaths in this country, while the benefits of having so many guns out there and so easily accessible is minimal.Lighters are far more useful and necessary to the functioning of our society and cause no where near as many casualties. The idea that we would put all of these requirements in for lighters is therefore every bit as absurd as it sounds.
Minimal? The presence of guns as a natural deterrent for a tyrannical government is reason enough to justify having so many of them in this county. A tyrannical government can shed far more blood and end far more lives than the current collective of criminals we have in this country.
But since you're so concerned about all the current deaths in this country that involves guns, I add the other point that guns are likely used to save more lives among the populace than they are used to end to my argument here.
The idea that we should pass all these gun control laws, or ban guns entirely, is just as absurd as it would be for lighters.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I think unratedness should be for serious tournament debates, personal challenges(such as the topic of Barney not accusing Novice of following him) and rap battles, music battles, etc. The rest should be rated though because they are all the same kind of streetfight here.
If I ran a serious tournament, it would be rated because tournament performance is still a good measurement of skill, and the opportunity to gain elo could be a serious draw.
For everything else, I get the point. I just found that troll debates are a fine usage for the unrated category.
That is literally how the noobs learn. That is how I grew up the ranks. I started up as a noob and immediately get slammed by large names such as RM and Oromagi. Then I try to imitate their styles and then I win. A system where higher rankers could debate against noobs would actually filtrate more resilient noobs to keep debating(I mean, that used to be all of us here). Forced unratedness is not good for any new accounts in the long run.
Yeah. This was the thought that convinced me as well. This is kinda funny, but I was first convinced of this line of thinking in a separate issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It showcases that the idea that guns do not cause deaths is nonsense.
It doesn't. Every gun death has a human element to it. Even in your hypothetical, there needed to be a parent who stored the gun improperly, and child who likely wasn't parented correctly.
The point of the hypothetical was to refute a concept.
I understand that, but your hypothetical fails to do so. If you want, you can have a hypothetical where the gun breaks itself out of the box, walks itself over to a human, and shoots them. That would be an example of a gun killing someone.
If we really want to get specific on this one hypothetical, we could require a gun safety class to be completed before allowing someone to purchase a firearm, as just one example. Would that stop this from ever happening? No, but would almost certainly reduce the number of these types of incidents.
That is a good argument in favor of requiring those courses. I will be on board with this if the process is quick enough for someone who urgently needs a gun.
Guns are the number one cause of death in three US for children. Where exactly is being burned to death on that list?
Not very high up, but that is irrelevant. Surely you could save some lives by passing lighter control, no?
Alternatively, we could have entire campaigns telling parents to keep their kids away from lighters, and kids to stay away from lighters. Couple that with improvements in child safety mechanisms, and we could have a decrease in the rate of those types of incidents.
I argue that proper gun education and the rise of smart guns (as I've begun to research- it looks promising) could contribute to a decline in adolescent gun death rates.
Will it decline overall? I can't say, since there are many other factors than just the guns themselves that contribute to adolescent gun deaths. Even then, tackling those other factors would be far more effective than sweeping gun control, just like tackling the root causes of poor fire safety (with education and innovation) would be more effective than lighter control. Point is, there's more to object-related deaths than the object itself, especially in this case, where the presence of a gun is not the root cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I get that, but it's better to make an original thread than this. This is just forum spam, and now you've basically encouraged Roosevelt to do the same. :/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
And that is why gun bans is actually what to push for but it seems enough Americans will let their children be slaughtered, literally not metaphorically and not hyperbole, before daring to push for that... So, America is fucked.
I'm going to disagree with this on the basis that, while horrible, these events are too rare to justify stripping away the people's right to defend themselves, be it an intruder or a tyrannical government.
A government that disarms its people can do more harm and shed more blood than any of these shooters can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't think we need this. Coal had a good thread on this. It got derailed for a sec, but there's still good conversation to be had on there.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
My YT homepage consists mostly of funny "dank" meme edits, flerfers and gnostic theists being "owned", and game videos, and occasionally people eating stuff or just tortuing themselves for money or content.
Yeah, that sounds like YouTube alright.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Oh it's been a while since I've heard this one. Brings me back to fourth grade. Nowadays we just ask someone if they heard that some celebrity got ligma.
Created:
A generator is good for a lot of disasters. Blizzards, severe storms, possibly earthquakes. Guns are a good thing to have if the disaster involves anarchy/lawlessness.
But if the nukes are dropped, I'm just gonna pray. Not that I live, but that God's will be done, whatever it is.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Quiet yet recognisable, sociable yet reserved, the enigma of Mharman is simply the extraverted honest dude that people get along with even when they don't.
I can see this. I don't think I'm an extrovert (all tests I took said introvert), but I suppose I can appear that way in online interaction, as opposed to IRL interaction. Although I gotta say, I feel it's hard to pin anyone in either category, since they seem to be temporary states for me, depending on the mood I'm in. All in all, I tend to be on the introvert side, but can be extroverted at times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Salvation is not had through policy.
Bingo. We can fix some problems through policy, but the problems behind the problems can only be solved with cultural improvements.
How many of these shooters were raised poorly, or had some kind of traumatic experience in their past? I suspect it’s almost all of them. Not defending those evil people, but it’s clear that there’s more going on with them than the sheer moral depravity required to shoot up a school.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I wonder how effective they are, and if they can be mandated without enabling government tyranny. I’ll look into it later, but what are your thoughts on them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Question: Was that child who was shot to death killed by a gun or killed by another child?
Killed by another child. Does this mean we should hold the child responsible? Obviously not, they don't know what they're doing. However, your argument doesn't showcase the importance of gun regulation, it showcases the importance of gun education.
If your 5yo finds your gun and manages to kill another kid with it, 1) You didn't stash your gun properly, 2) You probably left it loaded when not in use, and 3) You may have failed to parent your child properly so that they would know not to go near an object like that.
But none of these are things we can regulate. We can't control how people store their guns on their property, and we can't stop parents from failing to parent properly. Many house fires have been started by children playing with lighters. Do we need to ban lighters, or require some kind of special permit for lighters?
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Also it avoids situations when it's easy to grind rating on the new accounts that don't know what they are doing.
If the noobs don't like being noobsniped, perhaps they should look for other noobs to challenge specifically.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I suggest changing the default to rated, not standard
I second this. I get the feeling a lot of these are products of people just leaving the defaults, not really being conscious of what they change. To be honest, I don't see why we should have unrated debates in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I'll read it later. The thing is, we have a whole thread that sets etiquette expectations for this forum. If even some of those expectations are held up by the COC (and why wouldn't they be, at least the ones with regard to insults and misquoting?), then he should've been actioned a long time ago.
From the thread:
Formatting Best Practices:For actual debates, I highly suggest referencing the guide. However, for general forum use, just obey a few simple guidelines:
- Space between things is useful if you wish to be legible
- Don’t bold and/or CAPITALIZE all of your text
- Don’t misquote other users
As I've bolded and underlined, #3 is key. The example I gave isn't the only time he's misquoted me, and I'm sure he's done this to plenty of others as well.
Response to mind reading:
On this site, this dude is the king of calling people Nazis, bigots, and the like. He can't even make the defense that he has a reason to believe we are such, since as he's admitted, he won't debate us.
There are three types of trolls (or with vulgarity):
- Clowns who are not necessarily trying to inspire anger.
- Losers with nothing better to do with their lives than try to anger strangers.
- Idiots who say things so stupid you mistake them for the Type 1 or Type 2, but they lack the mental facilities to do it intentionally.
So if engaging in comedy, please keep the following in mind:
- Lots of people will see it, so try to make it more about entertaining the audience, rather than hurting anyone’s feelings.
- Never forget Poe's Law. The one time a feminist talks in satire about how women are weakened by their right to vote, someone will mistake them for being serious.
- Don’t do mindless insults. Just calling someone a retard makes you look uninspired. It’s much better to properly evaluate their logic, point out every flaw in it, and leave them being a mentally deficient the unspoken but only rational conclusion from the evidence.
- Don’t stalk people. Their interactions on a different topic in a different thread, is not the time to bring up old dirt. Certainly never make threads calling them out by name.
I think "idiot" is a bit harsh for Roosevelt, but he's certainly childish and foolish, so I think he falls into category #3. And obviously, he's made more mindless insults than anyone I've seen on the site.
I do believe there should be some leeway with these etiquette expectations, but it's clear they should be enforced in this case, if possible. In nearly every flame war in this forum, Roosevelt is a common denominator. He repeatedly violates these expectations, and openly admits to doing so, with "for your own good" being his best defense. It is such a weak defense. Rather than change his behavior, he continues to make it pretty clear that he's not going to change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@bmdrocks21
@PREZ-HILTON
Can you do me a favor and stop communicating with him.
As someone who's already begun to do the same, I back this idea.
To me, the problem is not the fact that he disagrees with me, but his conduct. I respect Double_R, Barney, and Oromagi because they come across as genuine to me. Roosevelt does not. It's easy to tell he doesn't argue in good faith.
He can't go 5 posts without some childish name-calling. When confronted, he tries to justify it with some ridiculous paternalistic argument. For whatever reason, he thinks telling us we should be "forced underground" and saying he will "continue to deride" us is "for our own good," and so we "should be thanking" him. He thinks that, since we are so full of shit, we should be insulted repeatedly so that his pushback makes us think about why we could be wrong.
Ignoring the fact that cult brainwashing tactics like that don't work without significant social pressure, and that they only succeed in stopping PUBLIC expression of beliefs (private expression increases, because people tend to respond to social censorship with disgust, pushing themselves toward the side being censored) when that condition for said social pressure is met, there's the elephant in the room: His assumption that we are wrong.
It's already so proven in his mind that we are evil bigots that he won't debate us genuinely. As he's said in the past: "I don't debate bigots." However, this leads to a natural self-contradiction: He won't debate us to know what we're saying, but somehow, he knows that we hold bigoted beliefs.
I pointed this out to him once with a question that went something like, "How can you tell someone is a bigot when you won't even debate them?" His response was to C/P ONLY the "How can you tell someone is a bigot" part, and conveniently leave out the "when you won't even debate them" part. He essentially took half of my question out and altered the meaning of my rhetorical statement in doing so. He then responded by saying "by what they say and do." .... Yeah, no shit. My point was that since he refuses to debate people, he doesn't actually know what "they say and do."
But of course, he couldn't answer my question honestly. That would require him to trust that my question was genuine. After all, why would he *ever* think a question coming from a bigot is genuine? So instead, he must edit my question to circumvent some kind of trap he thinks I've set. This REPEATED lack in trust for the person across the aisle has ironically, created of him an ideologue so stubborn, childish, and ignorant, that at the end of the day, he's the only one that can't be trusted to argue in good faith.
I doubt ignoring him will make him go away, but I'm still going to ignore him on the grounds of his poor conduct, from the insults to the paranoid belief system he has that causes all of his bad faith arguing. If he wants to waste his time responding to me, here or elsewhere, he can be my guest. Until I see any change in how he argues, I will not waste my time on him.
Created:
Posted in:
FAU, Miami, San Diego State, and UConn.
It's a weird one this year. Who ya got? How did we even get to these teams anyway?
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
^^^ forgot to tag
Created:
I've said this over and over again for the "orange man bad" people. Another nothing burger coming from the media. This is all political targeting and grasping at straws to try to nail someone that they are afraid of. The media is portraying this to the brainless people out there that will look at this theater and think Donald Trump is a criminal and a threat to society.
Bingo. The fact that they spent over 4 years investigating something that happened over 6 years ago and only have an accusation now, based on a testimony from a guy who will lie for whatever cause benefits him the most, and questionable legal semantics tells me everything I need to know about this.
Any judge would be righteous to toss this case as moot, let alone the lack of evidence (after 4 years!) and the twisting of definitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
I agree with the OP that if you know the field you are going into to and it needs college credentials, then go for it. It should pay for itself. If not, leave it alone.
I'd say this accurate. We all have our talents and desires, so some people should go for a career that doesn't require college, and some should go for a career that requires college. A lot of it is understanding yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Really? So do the Taliban seem reasonable to you? They are very religious
Not talking about the Taliban here. You're missing my point on this front.
My point is that Christians believe God supports rational policy. Therefore, Christian Democrats believe God endorses their stances on issues. If a Christian didn't believe their policy ideas were endorsed by God, they wouldn't believe them. Therefore, the party that endorses those ideas is the party of God. This applies to Christian Democrats as much as Christians who identify with other parties. The reason you see Christian Democrats claim to be the party of God less is because it isn't politically popular among the many atheists in the Democratic Party. However, Christian Democrat politicians have been known to quote scripture from time to time to appeal to other Christian Democrats, inadvertently claiming to be the party of God if not saying it outright. In a vacuum, it would be somewhat common, but compared to Christian Republican politicians (who have less atheists, but not none, in their base), it is rare. Regardless, both parties have Christians and atheists who believe a variety of things about God's place in politics and what policies God would endorse, to pin an entire party based on the actions and words of some is ridiculous.
Your logic, which ignores all nuance about what individuals believe about what God endorses and condemns, would assert that Cuomo a hypocrite, since God hates divorce and Cuomo got one. By association, the Democrats would be a party of hypocrites, since they have individuals who believe their party is the party of God but are getting divorces.
Of course, that logic is silly, and so would the hypothetical argument about Cuomo that it rests on, as well as the argument you've made about Conway.
That is my point, given in detail.
Are you kidding? Republicans believe and assert:
All of your examples fall into one of two categories:
1. It is not a mainstream position within the party, or Christianity.
2. There are non-religious arguments for this position.
Let's go over them.
God doesn’t want gay people to marry .
It is a sin. However, they are free to do so at their own risk. I have yet to see an outright ban on gay marriage become a mainstream idea, most Christians I've talked to on this hold the same position I do.
God doesn’t want abortions
Abortion is murder. The definition of life by status of need is arbitrary and unscientific.
God doesn’t want gay people to raise children. (no adoption)
One doesn't need to invoke God for this. There are negative psychological effects on children raised outside of the traditional family structure.
God doesn’t want blacks to marry or procreate with whites
Lol, just lol. Not even remotely close to being argued in any mainstream capacity. The few Christians who believe this base their claims on flawed theology and a general misunderstanding of why God told the Israelites not to marry the Caananites. Hint: Inter-religious marriage is banned, not interracial marriage.
God doesn’t approve of contraception
Some churches believe in contraception, some don't. Those that don't (like mine) rarely argue for a complete ban on contraceptives. It is seen as a sin, but those who use them are free to sin at their own risk. However, this only applies to contraceptives that prevent egg releases. Contraceptives that kill a fertilized egg or prevent one from attaching the intrauterine wall should be banned, since they kill the unborn. This falls into the same category as my abortion argument from earlier.
Regardless of whether or not you agree, it is foolish to say that one needs to invoke God to hold these positions, and foolish to assert all of these positions are mainstream, or that every Christian Republican agrees with them.
Even if you acknowledge the Christian Republicans that do not hold any of these positions, the ones that don't believe in all of these positions, and the ones that have non-religious arguments for their positions, your argument still attempts to smear them based on association. This is an obvious logical fallacy.
But of course, fallacies are your MO. To be honest, the only thing in your argument that surprised me was the mention of racist sentiment, because your claim there was completely laughable. I'm sure you'll spew a ton of insults at me in your reply. Doesn't matter to me. I can't take anything you say seriously anymore, if I even did in the first place.
Simply put, you never argue in good faith, so you're not worth my future time. You can go ahead and have the last word. I won't bother responding. In fact, I won't bother replying to anything you say in the future.
Goodbye.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
Funny.
Speaking of funny... Famous Clowns Mafia (uses characters like Bozo the Clown, the Joker, etc... can be IRL and fictional clowns)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ijb1
When someone posts sign-ups for their game. Right now, there are none available, but I’m sure someone will post one. I host games sometimes, but right now, I lack the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
That probably wasn't your fault. I think math is really poorly taught.
It’s not my teachers’ fault. Out of every math teacher I’ve ever had, all but one has been willing (not begrudgingly, either) to help me after class if I’m struggling with something. Their explanations have always been good enough for me as well. The problem is that I just can’t keep track of numbers in my head that well. It’s an ADD thing; it caused me to forget some of the numbers mid-equation and get it wrong.
Thankfully, I’m past high school and not doing a whole lot of math-related stuff in college. I did have to take personal finance last inter term and that was obnoxious though.
I’m not terrible at math either (590 on the math portion of the SAT) I’m just below what I consider the standard of excellence. Writing on the other hand, is something I know I do well (750).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Clear HeartHeaven's WheelAtarxia
What do all these do?
Created:
Posted in:
Current Mafia:
N/A
Signups:
N/A
In the Hopper:
N/A
On Hold:
RationalMadman - Well-known Autistic Spectrum people
Speedrace - MCU Disney+ Shows Mafia
Earth - Skyrim Mafia
Mharman - Indie Games Mafia
Created:
Posted in:
Ah, the old guide. You know, I don't remember which game Tvellalott claimed to be a town bus driver. I found it, but I don't know if I wrote myself any notes on it. Oh well. I'll look into it once summer break begins. It'd be nice to give summaries of games when I put together the full mafia archive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Republicans have to assert divine intervention.
Examples?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Don’t religious people think God stands for reasonable policies, though?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I notice the distinct lack of a counter-argument your statement to Greyparrot contains.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No no, one party, the Republicans, are the party of hypocrites because they claim to be the party of God,
So, Andrew Cuomo, a Roman Catholic Democrat, believes God would be a Republican then? And no Democrat who is Christian believes the party they identify with is the party of God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
By reducing one party to be UNIQUELY, the party of marriage, you are by default claiming the other party is the party of DIVORCE.
That’s a good point I didn’t even think of.
My points was just that there are divorced Christian politicians on both sides of the aisle, so there’s no reason for these association fallacy arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Ah, bollocks. I got my Cuomos confused. Was thinking of Andrew. And his divorce was in 2005, not 2019. I’m thinking of his long time girlfriend.
Anyway,
Thoughts on Andrew Cuomo’s 2005 divorce? Cuomo is Roman Catholic, so clearly he thinks the Democratic Party is the true party of God, otherwise he wouldn’t be a member. Is he a hypocrite?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Thoughts on Chris Cuomo’s 2019 divorce?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I’ll say this: I’ve yet to have a problem with this Captcha. But if other people are, perhaps changing the captcha to the suggested option would be best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I’m not sure who you’re railing against here, but you might want to find better criticisms of that person than association fallacy arguments.
Created: