Forum Thread

Another day, another mass shooting

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 211 - 219 of 219 Prev 1 .. 11 12 13 14 15
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: where is the fallacy in that more people are killed by means other than guns, actually more people are killed by handguns as opposed to long guns single shot or semi-automatic, handguns are have stricter laws and more intense registration, no fallacy there,

    What's having me laughing is that you use a red herring logical fallacy to insist you aren't using logical fallacies.

    This discussion is, and always has been, about mass shootings; not heart disease or cancer.

    johnnycee Wrote: it must hurt being an uber liberal, and not believing that it's a collective effort by both political parties that this Nation is in such a mess. Now is that a logical fallacy.

    It doesn't hurt at all. I love being a liberal. I believe in justice, equal protection, and the fundamental rights of human beings. You know...like Jesus, your Lord and savior, instructed his followers to do.

    Collective effort is absolute bullshit. The Republican Party wants to deny gay individuals the right to marry and they want to close our borders to anyone who isn't white. Those assholes have to be silenced and sent off to the dust bin of history.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: where is the fallacy in that more people are killed by means other than guns, actually more people are killed by handguns as opposed to long guns single shot or semi-automatic, handguns are have stricter laws and more intense registration, no fallacy there,

    What's having me laughing is that you use a red herring logical fallacy to insist you aren't using logical fallacies.

    This discussion is, and always has been, about mass shootings; not heart disease or cancer.

    johnnycee Wrote: it must hurt being an uber liberal, and not believing that it's a collective effort by both political parties that this Nation is in such a mess. Now is that a logical fallacy.

    It doesn't hurt at all. I love being a liberal. I believe in justice, equal protection, and the fundamental rights of human beings. You know...like Jesus, your Lord and savior, instructed his followers to do.

    Collective effort is absolute bullshit. The Republican Party wants to deny gay individuals the right to marry and they want to close our borders to anyone who isn't white. Those assholes have to be silenced and sent off to the dust bin of history.

    Again the Topic is about mass shootings and the subsequent number of deaths being so high, when there are a number of other reasons such as vehicle accidents, and other modes of death that are in fact higher than the mass killings number, you would much rather discuss semantics, and the fundamental rights of Human beings , then you go off on a tangent about Gay Marriage when the thread is no where near that topic, you then interject religion into the conversation, why?, and I might add with an undertone sarcasm, again Why? Christians are not tolerant of non-believers, we just don't believe in killing them for not being Christian, my point is that not one of your points other than the one about being painful is referencing the original topic of the thread, would that make them a "Straw Man Argument " or perhaps a " Logical Fallacy"?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Again the Topic is about mass shootings and the subsequent number of deaths being so high, when there are a number of other reasons such as vehicle accidents, and other modes of death that are in fact higher than the mass killings number,

    Then keep focused on mass shootings and not vehicle accidents.

    A red herring, for the thousandth time, is when there is a discussion--let's say about mass shootings--and someone brings up a point that has nothing to do with the discussion--let's say vehicle accidents--and insists it belongs in the conversation when in fact it has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand.

    Red herrings are used as a distraction tool by people who want to talk about anything other than the actual topic under discussion.

    johnnycee Wrote: you would much rather discuss semantics, and the fundamental rights of Human beings , then you go off on a tangent about Gay Marriage when the thread is no where near that topic, you then interject religion into the conversation, why?, and I might add with an undertone sarcasm, again Why? Christians are not tolerant of non-believers, we just don't believe in killing them for not being Christian, my point is that not one of your points other than the one about being painful is referencing the original topic of the thread, would that make them a "Straw Man Argument " or perhaps a " Logical Fallacy"?

    You suggested it must be hard for me because I'm a liberal. I responded that it wasn't hard at all and that I am an unabashedly proud and happy liberal.

    I then pushed back against your collective effort nonsense because anyone with a working brain understands there's no such thing as collective effort when it comes to mass shootings and gun nuts predictable responses to them.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: Again the Topic is about mass shootings and the subsequent number of deaths being so high, when there are a number of other reasons such as vehicle accidents, and other modes of death that are in fact higher than the mass killings number,

    Then keep focused on mass shootings and not vehicle accidents.

    A red herring, for the thousandth time, is when there is a discussion--let's say about mass shootings--and someone brings up a point that has nothing to do with the discussion--let's say vehicle accidents--and insists it belongs in the conversation when in fact it has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand.

    Red herrings are used as a distraction tool by people who want to talk about anything other than the actual topic under discussion.

    johnnycee Wrote: you would much rather discuss semantics, and the fundamental rights of Human beings , then you go off on a tangent about Gay Marriage when the thread is no where near that topic, you then interject religion into the conversation, why?, and I might add with an undertone sarcasm, again Why? Christians are not tolerant of non-believers, we just don't believe in killing them for not being Christian, my point is that not one of your points other than the one about being painful is referencing the original topic of the thread, would that make them a "Straw Man Argument " or perhaps a " Logical Fallacy"?

    You suggested it must be hard to be a liberal. I responded that it wasn't hard at all and that I am an unabashedly proud and happy liberal.

    I then pushed back against your collective effort nonsense because anyone with a working brain understands there's no such thing as collective effort when it comes to mass shootings and gun nuts predictable responses to them.

    I thought that you were aware that my reference to a "collective effort" was in point of fact that both members of Congress have to decide what to do regarding Firearm restrictions, and not to mass Shootings, but then again if the response does not fit your particular narrative well then then that person must be spouting nonsense and having a non-working brain, rather than having a dialogue you choose to attack, as I said you are a Uber liberal, , and I find it peculiar that what you call what you do as a pushback ,yet you call that in others Logical Fallacy, Hmm.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: I thought that you were aware that my reference to a "collective effort" was in point of fact that both members of Congress have to decide what to do regarding Firearm restrictions, and not to mass Shootings, but then again if the response does not fit your particular narrative well then then that person must be spouting nonsense and having a non-working brain,

    There have been more mass shootings than number of days this year and thousands of mass shootings since Columbine and you actually believe Congress will come together in a "collective effort" to do anything about it?

    The NRA has resisted any and all attempts to do anything and the Republican Party is beholden to the NRA. They won't even allow the Congress to repeal a law specifically prohibiting the CDC or any other governmental agency from even studying gun violence. The Republican Congress quietly extended that ban back in July of this year.

    Do you honestly think the NRA and their pawns in Congress are just going to do an about face and start working on a "collective effort" to end gun violence in this country if they won't even allow the CDC or any other governmental agency to study gun violence in the first place?

    johnnycee Wrote: rather than having a dialogue you choose to attack,

    Would you want to have a dialogue if you lost your kindergartner while she was in her classroom? Or your teenage son who was watching a movie in a theater? What about your social worker brother who helped some of the most vulnerable citizens with developmental disabilities?

    How much more dialogue should we continue to have before we actually do something? 1,000 more mass shootings? 10,000 more mass shootings? 100,000 more mass shootings? Or should we all just continue this "dialogue" forever and ever?

    johnnycee Wrote:as I said you are a Uber liberal, , and I find it peculiar that what you call what you do as a pushback ,yet you call that in others Logical Fallacy, Hmm.

    As I said earlier--I am a proud "uber" liberal. I wear that as a badge of honor, so thank you.

    And it's not my fault you don't understand the English language. You suggested it must suck being a liberal and I responded that it doesn't. That's not a logical fallacy; it's responding to an ad hominem--which ironically happens to be a logical fallacy in and of itself--attack by someone.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Again with the reading into what someone posts, never said that it sucks to be liberal, only that you were an uber Liberal and that it might hurt, perhaps I should have used the word extreme. The CDC does not have anything to do with the NRA, now unless you are espousing the notion that all or maybe just most of the NRA membership has a disease which the CDC can monitor or even prevent the spread of the disease, then they can have a voice. Now if the CDC wants to take a stance on the fact that most of the mass shooting had ties to some form of mental issue and that the issues of background checks should reflect that issue , which by the way the NRA supports ,then they should have it . I think you are just another gun hater, case closed. BTW, I also did not post that being an uber liberal was a logical fallacy, again you misread what I post, it was about both parties being the cause of the mess we are in and not just what you suggested about mass shootings, again if it does not fit your narrative , do the ole end around and maker it look like it might fit.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I never knew that "sucks" and "hurts" were diametrically opposite verbs. I apologize for not quoting you exactly. I promise it won't happen again.

    johnnycee Wrote: The CDC does not have anything to do with the NRA,

    I encourage you to do a little research.

    The reason the CDC can't do any research into gun violence is specifically because Congress prevents them from doing so. The reason Congress prevents the CDC from conducting any research into gun violence is because the NRA threatens any and all members with lowering their "score" if they even openly discuss removing the ban on the CDC's conducting any research into gun violence.

    johnnycee Wrote:now unless you are espousing the notion that all or maybe just most of the NRA membership has a disease which the CDC can monitor or even prevent the spread of the disease, then they can have a voice.

    I think we all know that many, many members of the NRA have a mental illness--especially Wayne LaPierre and Jim Porter.

    johnnycee Wrote:Now if the CDC wants to take a stance on the fact that most of the mass shooting had ties to some form of mental issue and that the issues of background checks should reflect that issue , which by the way the NRA supports ,then they should have it .

    They have. The CDC and the NIH have begged to be able to conduct research into gun violence and what causes it. Your heroes in the Republican Party and the NRA have prevented them from being able to do so.

    The NRA might say they want new research into what causes gun violence, but actions speak far louder than words and their actions prove they don't give a shit about figuring out what causes gun violence.

    johnnycee Wrote: I think you are just another gun hater, case closed.

    Someones panties are up in a bunch.

    I am a hater of mass shootings and I'm a hater of people who think their 2nd Amendment right trumps my right to live without fear of going into a movie theater and getting slaughtered by an asshole who can purchase weapons of war at the corner gun shop.

    If you want to go shoot a deer in the woods then have at it, but there is zero reason for you to be able to own a gun that can slaughter dozens of elementary school children in a classroom.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Not big news but this morning this little white boy in prison for his racial mass murder......got his ass beat. I'm sure if he just had his guns back this wouldn't have happened. Regular justice is slow. Thankfully on occasion we get something to smile about.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Old Miller brewery was the latest here in Wisconsin. MSM reported the shooter had an ongoing feud with a fellow employee. The victims were either white and/or Latino, the shooter was black. I told my wife when the news here in cheddarland broke that I thought the motive was workplace harassment or something to do with racism.

    Media coverage of this mass shooting seemed like it was covered by second rate journalists too.