[jon.kiparsky]

Python_4_President, on 28 December 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

If you wanted to reduce things even further, you could just live inside of a sub-terranean steel box your entire life, or just not even exist at all. How can you shoot someone that doesn't exist? Non-existent people don't get the flu, either, or cancer!

Straw man is floppy and cannot stand on his own!

Obviously, if you get some utility out of playing with firearms, then you evaluate the risks and proceed accordingly. But if you're not into shooting, this is completely irrelevant. I'm a musician, my ears are already fucked, I'd put utility on not being in a room full of exploding stuff. Maybe you're stupid and like handling firearms while loaded - fine, as long as you're nowhere near anyone who hasn't agreed to be put at risk, great. Of course, if there's anyone within range who hasn't agreed to this, you're an asshole and should die, but I assume that's not the case.

[Craig328]

farrell2k, on 28 December 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:

Craig328, on 28 December 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

You seem to suggest that the onus is on the potential victim to lower their risk of being a victim of a crime.

It is. It's exactly why we teach drivers to drive defensively.

The entire reason gun owners carry is is to....wait for it....lower their risk of being a victim of a crime. Do you think before you write this stuff?

Craig328, on 28 December 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

I mean, let's dispense with the patent inanity of a serious effort to "avoid guns".

I avoid shaking hands with people during flu season. You can only get the flu when exposed to it...

Craig328, on 28 December 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

But just for sake of argument, let's assume that despite your L337 avoidance sk33lz that someone does cross your personal boundary line with a weapon? Since you've disarmed yourself what will you do?

False dichotomy. One need not carry a gun to be armed with a weapon. "Either you have a gun, or you're defenseless" arenot the only two options. You have obviously bought into this nonsensical, NRA manufactured idea that you're not safe unless you have a loaded gun in your hands 24/7. It is people like you with loaded guns and limited critical thinking skills that I do my best to avoid at all costs. I am grateful for that list. Every city should have one.

So, while dancing around so as to make minor style points you avoid the obvious: unless you're willing to live in a hermetically sealed box the rest of your days, your avoiding guns effort, while childishly laudable, is ridiculous. The reason it's ridiculous is twofold:

1./ There are guns everywhere. They're at your bank that you bank at. They're at the grocery store you shop at. They're at the courthouse. They're at the school (yes, they are). In short, by suggesting that you'll avoid people who have a gun in their vicinity and doing so via a list of registered (read: "people who obey laws already") gun owners is simplemindedness taken to extremes. Walking down a street in any sized city/town in the country will have you passing someone in possession of a gun every few minutes. Presumably you haven't stopped leaving your home so you engage in such hazardous activities via ignorance. Nice foundation you have there.

2./ However, should you ever encounter a situation where you find yourself armed to the teeth with whatever non-gun you possess...and you require additional assistance (because even the movies make fun of idiots "who bring a knife to a gun fight"), the guys you'll call will be who? MEN WITH GUNS. Will you avoid them as well? How about all the people who make up our armed forces? You know...the men and women whose duty it is to protect and ensure your freedoms...with guns.

You want to avoid law abiding gun owners because, presumably, you fear the nature of an inanimate object...go for it. It's ridiculous and simply outs you as someone who can't entertain a more complex thought. In fact, the newspaper published that list expressly to push the buttons of people like you. Congrats.

This post has been edited by Craig328: 28 December 2012 - 10:24 AM

[Python_4_President]

Quote

Maybe you're stupid and like handling firearms while loaded. ---- if there's anyone within range who hasn't agreed to this, you're an asshole and should die.

I dunno about the "die" part of that statement, but the rest I agree with.

I am a firm supporter of not operating dangerous machinery when intoxicated. While none of my friends have been shot, several have been paralyzed/killed due to poor decisions made when operating fourwheelers and similar. Bad idea, in general.

[Craig328]

jon.kiparsky, on 28 December 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

Gorian, on 28 December 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

This really comes across like a child in the grocery store, who refused to move until he gets his candy. Let us instead of accusing people of "logical fallacies" for disagreeing with us, or refusing to debate with them as peers, either gracefully conceded from the argument and thread, or present a rebuttal in a respectful way.

The trouble is, Farrell's right. "I don't know X to be true" is hardly an argument worth mentioning. And Craig - well, Craig's special. It's fun to watch him try to put together an argument, and to watch the pieces fall off of it as he jogs along. His latest effusion is no different.

You know, Jon, I was asked some time back to exhibit civility when dealing with you on these forums. To that end I consistently ignore most of what you post and when I don't I conduct myself in a manner consistent with the entirely reasonable request to not egg you on or stoop to your level.

We disagree on a great many things, that much is clear. I assure you, I find your arrogant, pretentious, false-intellect to be tiresome in the extreme and I make efforts to avoid granting your constant self-granted superior attitude an audience. While I am glad to let your odious infantile scribblings slide without comment, do me a small favor and restrain your entirely misguided amusement at disagreeing with me to yourself.

In other words: try acting more like what you like to claim you are. Thanks in advance.

[jon.kiparsky]

Craig328, on 28 December 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

unless you're willing to live in a hermetically sealed box the rest of your days, your avoiding guns effort, while childishly laudable, is ridiculous.

I'm sure there's a formal paradox for this, but I usually refer to it as the paradox of being a moron. Somebody nicer than me will probably give it its correct name, I can't be arsed to look it up.

To avoid spending time in the company of overly-armed amateurs doesn't imply hiding away from any place where a weapon might be present. "I don't let my kids play at a house where guns are kept" does not mean "I don't walk the streets because there are policemen carrying pistols". How stupid do you have to be to try to make these two things equivalent?

Quote

While I am glad to let your odious infantile scribblings slide without comment, do me a small favor and restrain your entirely misguided amusement at disagreeing with me to yourself.

I had a lot of fun reading that in my Steven Fry voice. It was cute- "pompous toff" is a good look for you.

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 28 December 2012 - 10:37 AM

[supersloth]

WHERE IS GORIAN WHEN WE NEED HIM

[Python_4_President]

GORIAN WAS NOT ALLOWED TO CARRY WEAPONS USED BY MODERATORS BECAUSE NON-MODERATORS WERE SCARED THAT A NON-MODERATOR EQUIPPED WITH MODERATOR WEAPONS MIGHT MODERATE CHILDREN!

GORIAN CANNOT HELP US AND THE MODERATORS ARE STILL MINUTES AWAY!

[Gorian]

Haha! I knew you missed me supersloth!

and here I thought you were wanting me to quit imploring people for civility.

Carrying weapons? Nah. I am a weapon. of sexiness.

This post has been edited by Gorian: 28 December 2012 - 10:52 AM

[supersloth]

oh i do, that was me mocking you.

[Gorian]

Oh, I know.

[modi123_1]

Nyquil compels me to add:

[supersloth]

you needed the force to use a lightsaber, modi. gosh.

(also, they could use a lightsaber to STOP light bullets. this analogy is not cannon at all)

[modi123_1]

Ah.. so we need to list and label all the force sensitive people.. or just get rid of them. Straight up order 66 those bastards!

[Craig328]

modi123_1, on 28 December 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

Ah.. so we need to list and label all the force sensitive people.. or just get rid of them. Straight up order 66 those bastards!

What are you blathering on about? I have it on good authority you just avoid them and everything works out peachy. Darth this and Darth that will surely either be easy to discern or be on whatever list you need.

[farrell2k]

Gorian, on 28 December 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

farrell2k, on 28 December 2012 - 01:51 AM, said:

Until you and Craig stop committing logical fallacies in your arguments, I refuse to take either of you seriously.

This really comes across like a child in the grocery store, who refused to move until he gets his candy. Let us instead of accusing people of "logical fallacies" for disagreeing with us, or refusing to debate with them as peers, either gracefully conceded from the argument and thread, or present a rebuttal in a respectful way.

An argument based on a logical fallacy is not sound, and not worthy of rebuttal. I will not debate with anyone who cannot form an argument that is not self-defeating. Don't like it? At the risk of sounding like a child in a grocery store who refuses to move until he gets his candy, too bad. />

Craig328, on 28 December 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

1./ There are guns everywhere. They're at your bank that you bank at. They're at the grocery store you shop at. They're at the courthouse. They're at the school (yes, they are). In short, by suggesting that you'll avoid people who have a gun in their vicinity and doing so via a list of registered (read: "people who obey laws already") gun owners is simplemindedness taken to extremes. Walking down a street in any sized city/town in the country will have you passing someone in possession of a gun every few minutes.

I won't call you simple-minded, because I do not believe that you are, but your arguments do tend to fall apart.

So, let's see if I have got this right - You claim that I cannot completely avoid all guns, therefore I should not try to avoid any.

Car accidents happen all the time. I cannot avoid all car accidents, thus I should not try to avoid any.

Drug users are everywhere, therefore it is a waste of time to try to avoid people who use drugs.

I am highly allergic to cats, but legal cat owners are everywhere, therefore I should not try to avoid any.

I could go on and on.

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 28 December 2012 - 01:46 PM