Another Poor Gun Victim of Violent Spree

[Michchamp]

...

Here's another: http://www.detroitsportsforum.com/showthread.php?t=5870

Thumb

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Thumb, duh!
Posts: 8,939


Santorum speech on Satan in schools

Quote:
Originally Posted by KAWDUP
Lower class?!?

. . . as in people like you?



Glad to see you always add something valuable to the conversation, Mr. Insult.

​

BWAHAHAHAHAAHAA!!!!

AHHHHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!

 

[Thumb]

Careful. Danth's Law...

Does that apply though? Champ ddin;t declare himself the victor, just zyxt9 the loser.

 

[KAWDUP]

Also the last statement I made concerning crying about semantics applies to you too. What the hell is a fruitful discussion if the meanings of the words used aren't important?

Semantics are incredibily important, especially in a argument where I am constantly taken out of context, and opponents who think just because someone disagrees with a portion of their argument, that somehow I must believe the complete opposite of the entire set of statements.

I also found that stating the agreeable parts up front didn't work, because even when I state up front the correctness of parts that are based on factual information, and argue only with the conclusions, I still get accused of playing semantics.

The original reason for posting in reponse to Champ concerning "strawman" arguments, is that he is a master at extrapolating what is stated, to what he believes must be true about what someone else believes, making leaps of logic without any corroboration, (and with much exaggeration - I might add) in an attempt, I assume, to head off the next argument. It sure looked to me like his accusation rang hollow for that reason.

SO - now ask yourself, does what I just said mean that I agree whole-heartely with everything zyxt9 says? Without trying to be guilty of that which I despise, I can tell you what I think Champ's answer to that question would be.

. . . or maybe that is obvious?

 

[Michchamp]

...
6) The ridiculous inundation of political correctness.

...

political correctness... I love this one. such a loaded phrase.

it gave race-baiting guys on the right like Rush Limbaugh a way to play the victim when someone called them out on it.

they weren't racists... NOOOOO! Political correctness was simply RUN AMOK!

 

[KAWDUP]

No, I'm just saying when insults happen, often started by you, and you recieve them back you claim innocence.

I'm not saying anything about your responses or anything else, you're reading far too much into this.


EDIT: here was what a quick google search turned up: http://www.detroitsportsforum.com/showthread.php?t=7025&page=7

Here's another: http://www.detroitsportsforum.com/showthread.php?t=5870

LOL - did you read the entire thread or just pick out where I called Hughes a name? I suggest you go back and read how that all started, and get back to me. BTW - that argument started much earlier than in that thread. In addition, as I said before, the rhetoric and blind stupid name-calling was going on all over that thread long before I start in on it. You really using that one?

How about one where the first address to you is a name call? I won't hold my breath. I will, however, check for one of yours though.

 

[Michchamp]

your "lower class" comment was pretty clearly an insult, no?

Instead of defending anything Santorum said... you called mhughes lower class.

that's like Bill O. stuff right there. Don't like what the guy has to say? Facts aren't on your side? Change the subject. Insult him. If you're bigger than him, threaten him. If more numerous, dog pile him.

 

[KAWDUP]

political correctness... I love this one. such a loaded phrase.

it gave race-baiting guys on the right like Rush Limbaugh a way to play the victim when someone called them out on it.

they weren't racists... NOOOOO! Political correctness was simply RUN AMOK!

Ding ding ding - I knew I would get a patented Champ strawman argument for that one. I imagine you only believe it is loaded, because if you had said something like that, it would be loaded.

Do you base everything on your own prejudices? I, of course, meant nothing of the kind. It has nothing to do with race, creed, or sexual persuasion, you just assumed it did, and in doing so proved my point.

I deserve a cookie for that one.


Edit: Actually it may have an indirect relationship to creed, so I lied. Certainly nothing to do with race however. OK I guess I don't deserve a cookie, but I had you pegged.

 

[zyxt9]

"found it silly"..."science fiction"

typical small minded responses that i would expect from the likes of the two of you.

your laws will NEVER accomplish your goals, not even in the wildest dreams you can imagine. i give you the actual fix and you scoff. typical as well. better to bitch, whine, and cry about the problem than actually do something about fixing it in a REAL manner. laws are broken 24/7/365.25...but go ahead and keep trying to convince people your piece of paper is not worthless.

invest in the tech that will solve the problem instead of wasting it on useless laws makes too much sense because "it can't be done today". investing in it brings the functionality closer to reality faster. drumming up support for it brings it to reality faster. it could be done "before the decade is out" if properly funded. there is zero chance your laws will ever accomplish anything, but keep preaching how it will cure all the world's ills. LMFAO

 

[KAWDUP]

your "lower class" comment was pretty clearly an insult, no?

Instead of defending anything Santorum said... you called mhughes lower class.

that's like Bill O. stuff right there. Don't like what the guy has to say? Facts aren't on your side? Change the subject. Insult him. If you're bigger than him, threaten him. If more numerous, dog pile him.

???

I believe I understand to which comment you are referring, but don't really follow what you are getting at. Santorum said stupid stuff. I called out something specific that was said. Are you upset because, once I get insulted, I fire back with both barrels? You can't possibly be saying that, right? On a political message board where there are very few "holds" barred to begin with?

 

[zyxt9]

whoa... wait a minute. You want to discuss rats communicating telepathically with human researchers here... in a gun control thread?

I'm sorry, pal. We can discuss science fiction and future technology in the off-topic section, but there are some problems with gun-ownership, and gun sales that affect this country NOW, and have some very un-futuristic legislative fixes that are probably more realistic to consider.

I'm also not clear what exactly you're advocating here... are you in favor of microchips that manage a person's decision making process or are you using their existence as an argument against gun control?

instead of throwing trillions down the path of big pharma, throw that money into microchips that correct the instabilities with far greater results, zero side effects, and eliminate the "oops, forgot to take my pill" which directly led to the mental state that resulted in Sandy Hook.

additionally, guns can be synced to their owners, preventing the use of the guns by anyone but the owner.

so many possible ways to implement, and could happen so much sooner if people would stop acting like it is science fiction and recognize the reality of it is just around the corner with enough money. so many things these will solve. obesity is another example of something able to be corrected. instead of stomach stapling, insert a chip that accurately monitors your caloric intake vs what you burn. nanobots that can almost instantly detect cancers, or blood clots.

so many things these chips will accomplish, and will do so sooner if people just invest in them and promote them. these things are already in development, but they need more funding to make them reality sooner as opposed to later.

hell we are about to have cars that drive themselves. this is coming regardless.

 

[Thumb]

"found it silly"..."science fiction"

typical small minded responses that i would expect from the likes of the two of you.

your laws will NEVER accomplish your goals, not even in the wildest dreams you can imagine. i give you the actual fix and you scoff. typical as well. better to bitch, whine, and cry about the problem than actually do something about fixing it in a REAL manner. laws are broken 24/7/365.25...but go ahead and keep trying to convince people your piece of paper is not worthless.

invest in the tech that will solve the problem instead of wasting it on useless laws makes too much sense because "it can't be done today". investing in it brings the functionality closer to reality faster. drumming up support for it brings it to reality faster. it could be done "before the decade is out" if properly funded. there is zero chance your laws will ever accomplish anything, but keep preaching how it will cure all the world's ills. LMFAO

What do you want people to say? That waiting 50 years for some kind of a skynet-esque future fix is better then writing legislation now?

How small minded of me. :lmao:

 

[redandguilty]

Does that apply though? Champ ddin;t declare himself the victor, just zyxt9 the loser.

That's walking the line, so I just said 'careful'.

 

[KAWDUP]

Thumb

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Thumb, duh!
Posts: 8,939


Santorum speech on Satan in schools

Quote:
Originally Posted by KAWDUP
Lower class?!?

. . . as in people like you?



Glad to see you always add something valuable to the conversation, Mr. Insult.

​

BWAHAHAHAHAAHAA!!!!

AHHHHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!

I believe the question does not declare anything, but asks a simple complimentary question. You read that as me calling him "lower class"?

As if to say, that if we act as judge and jury on a situation we don't have the whole story on, here lookie - I can imply those kinds of things too. It doesn't call him anything.

I have certainly called you a tool before, that is more of an example than this is.

I loved your BWAHAHAH - you proved nothing once again, because you read into that what you would mean by it.

Tool :*)

 

[redandguilty]

instead of throwing trillions down the path of big pharma, throw that money into microchips

Big pharma will own those chips.

 

[KAWDUP]

I believe the question does not declare anything, but asks a simple complimentary question. You read that as me calling him "lower class"?

As if to say, that if we act as judge and jury on a situation we don't have the whole story on, here lookie - I can imply those kinds of things too. It doesn't call him anything.

I have certainly called you a tool before, that is more of an example than this is.

I loved your BWAHAHAH - you proved nothing once again, because you read into that what you would mean by it.

Tool :*)

Also I think you're lost again in the difference between an insult and name calling, used as two separate actions in the posts I am responding to actually. Of course the implication was meant to be at least somewhat insulting. No denials there. I believe I was baiting him, but then so was the initial question, no? Again responding in kind - as I have been saying all along?

You need me to explain any more of my sarcasm to you - you must think I am calling you dozens of names? Sheesh!! I admit, due to our past "discussions", our familiarity may lead to a few more sent your way, but I certainly expect it right back from you.

I know - now here is where I will get accused of using semantics to "back away" from an argument again. I think I have mentioned several times, I do tend to choose words, when not in the heat of a flame war (I know - old school), rather carefully, but I am nearly certain you can find an exception or two, just not really the one cited.

Got one for Thumb?

 

[Michchamp]

if your "lower class" comment was not an insult then words have no meaning. and arguing over the diff b/t name-calling and insults is, well, an exercise in semantics I think. huh. surprise.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Big pharma will own those chips.

Or Big Brother.

 

[KAWDUP]

if your "lower class" comment was not an insult then words have no meaning. and arguing over the diff b/t name-calling and insults is, well, an exercise in semantics I think. huh. surprise.

Well if insulting is your measuring stick, then why say them both together. If they mean the same thing, isn't that redundant?

BTW - In my humble opinion, you are insulting to people all the time. When I find one that particularly irks me I respond. Obviously since you didn't answer that one, you weren't all that insulted?

So, your point was that I did begin the conversation with name calling, and further added nothing to the discussion? Do I have this right - I wouldn't want to do what you usually do by putting words in your adversaries mouth? I, of course will beg to differ with you.

FYI - There are many kinds of insults with differing degrees of negativity:
(In no particular order)
1) Insulting one's environment - clothes being worn, the look of some possession of yours.
2) Insulting someone's intelligence - calling someone stupid.
3) Drawing comparisons to some other negativity - like being low class, etc.
4) Insulting one's beliefs, politics and religion.
5) Insulting one's family, friends, or your personal self - Name calling, etc.

So basically saying something negative about anything to do with another person could be considered insulting. So this is what you are upset with? You must be upset with loads of the posters in this forum - or is it only those that disagree with and argue with you?

I don't expect an answer, because I think I know it, but all I have to say is REALLY?!?

Personally I think cleverly doing #3 is one of the least negative ways to insult. Could even be considered as a sarcastic joke by many - but you can continue to lump them all together when it suits your purpose. OK by me, just want to understand the Champ ground rules.

 

[zyxt9]

What do you want people to say? That waiting 50 years for some kind of a skynet-esque future fix is better then writing legislation now?

How small minded of me. :lmao:

when you think some piece of paper is going to stop the violence, that is being small minded and incapable of putting yourself in the mindset of the person committing the violence. you need to analyze the reason why they are killing. it isn't because the gun somehow gained control of their body and forced them to perform those actions.

also, it won't take 50 years if you'd spend your time and money on the computer chip solution. could reasonably take less than 10. meanwhile your laws will sit ini committee then have to dodge the filibuster and veto powers. even if made into law, it will be such a small percentage of change and effectiveness it will easily be considered a waste of time and money.

but i'm sure when someone is about to use an assault weapon to commit mass murder that the piece of paper will be an incredible deterrent. maybe if it is thick enough. i did see on Mythbusters that it is possible to stop a bullet if you put enough paper together. of course carrying it around everywhere is a bit problematic...

 

[zyxt9]

Big pharma will own those chips.

depends on if they are able to recognize the changeover and apply their resources quickly enough. some might go the way of the dinosaurs, some might prefer using fear tactics (Big Brother Boogeyman). others might invest early and others may just buy up the tech companies creating the chips or nanobots.

still, i'd rather have a microchip and nanobots than popping who knows how many pills, especially since the nanobots will not have a domino effect of problems that lead to more and more pills. then there is the question of how effective the pills are in reality. i'm betting the nanobots will have a far greater chance of success, especially with cancers and blood clots.