a flower in hell on 22/2/2008 at 16:28
I try to derail the thread to stop argument and I get into another argument. I can't win!
fett on 22/2/2008 at 16:34
Quote Posted by The_Raven
Haha, it was only a matter of time after a gun loving, twenty-something, lesbian shows up at a gaming forum; even one of the smaller ones like TTLG.
EDIT: Anxiously awaiting the A Flower in Hell vs. Starrfall throwdown.
Mingan on 22/2/2008 at 17:16
SECONDED
SubJeff on 22/2/2008 at 18:13
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
Do you actually have anything worthwhile to say, or are you limited to making weak insults against others' intelligence whenever you see a counterargument you don't think you can handle?
You and catbarf have been coming out with some the most ridiculous nonsense seen on TTLG since 2001. I just cannot be bothered to argue with such idiocy. All the sensible people on here see it. You, of course, cannot.
june gloom on 22/2/2008 at 18:15
If by "sensible" you mean "agree with you", then yes.
SubJeff on 22/2/2008 at 18:21
I know you're RL friends with a flower dethtoll but really, you're better than this. Why are you associating yourself with carbarf and mopgoblin? At least you've made an arguement that one can, understand even if one doesn't agree. These guys have just been having unadulterated brainfarts. I've started lumping all 4 of you together and I feel kind of bad.
Quote:
If anything, by bringing up oxygen you only reinforce my point.
No it doesn't - it shows how inane it is. By your standards we ban either everything or nothing since it's conceivable that almost anything can be used in a crime.
catbarf on 22/2/2008 at 18:30
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
By your standards we ban either everything or nothing since it's conceivable that almost anything can be used in a crime.
And somehow you both understand it yet not understand it. You've exactly stated my point. You either ban everything simply because it can be used in a crime, which is patently ridiculous, or you realize that there are uses to firearms beyond crime and don't ban them outright simply because they
can be used in crime. Just like cars. Or oxygen.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
You and catbarf have been coming out with some the most ridiculous nonsense seen on TTLG since 2001. I just cannot be bothered to argue with such idiocy. All the sensible people on here see it. You, of course, cannot.
From 'How to Win Any Argument On the Internet':
Quote:
FLAME: i cant believe u said that president clinton was the 16th president, tahts wrong, he was the 42nd president you damn ideiot, and i should know cuz my dad worked in the ovale office last year and he's in the social security which protext the president from terrists
INCORRECT RESPONSE: Upon completing some rudimentary research, I have reached the conclusion that you are correct and I was wrong! My apologies, dear sir, and thank you for revealing truth to me!
CORRECT RESPONSE: GOD THIS IS SO POINTLESS!!! listen I am sick of saying this over and over, you obviously r to stupid to understand even BASIC ENGLITSH and Im getting sick of your dumb emails so I'm blocking u once and for all GOODBYE DUMB ASS! DONT BOTHER EMAILING ME CUZ I WONT GET IT, WELCOME TO IGNORESVILLE POPULATION: YOU, HOPE U LIKE TALKING TO A BLOCK LIST HAHAHAHAHA.
Congratulations. You are well-versed in the Internet.
SubJeff on 22/2/2008 at 19:43
Quote Posted by catbarf
You either ban everything simply because it can be used in a crime, which is patently ridiculous.
Clearly.
Which is MY point. You have to be able to discern, but sadly that requires thinking.
june gloom on 22/2/2008 at 19:52
Look, Subjeff, can we at least agree to disagree? Clearly, we're coming from two distinct perspectives here (US/UK) which in turn have coloured our opinions to the point where they're irreconcilable. While your statement that I am somehow overstating or otherwise fabricating my situation here because I insist that I am unable to move away makes me so angry I urinate pure rage (it burns, Subjeff!) I'm willing to utterly ignore it just for my own health. Thusly, my only remaining argument is that from the perspective of an Englander, it's a bit arrogant to assume that a system that apparently somewhat works for England could be used for the United States, which is a vastly different situation. I would argue that gun control (and government control in general) brings about wildly unpredictable results. Clearly, a gun ban seems to work to reduce certain kinds of violence in the UK, but here in the US even mildly restrictive laws will send a state or city into chaos.
If we in America want to end gun violence, banning guns isn't going to actually do it. That's just treating a symptom. You have to treat the cause- and a lot of that involves solving the gang problem.
Thirith on 22/2/2008 at 20:00
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Clearly.
Which is MY point. You have to be able to discern, but sadly that requires thinking.
Catbarf, you may want to check the setup for your visual/cognitive input: the colour depth seems to be set to 1-bit. You may want to consider setting it to 32-bit, or at least 8-bit greyscale
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Clearly, a gun ban seems to work to reduce certain kinds of violence in the UK, but here in the US
even mildly restrictive laws will send a state or city into chaos.Do you have any further information on this? It strikes me as overstatement, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by some evidence.
