Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Fri May 04, 2012 4:28 pm

jman111 wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:I try to avoid changing actual events into "what if" hypothetical situations, because one can always change it into whatever favors one's conclusions.

Where did this guy go?


And what "actual event" am I changing? The entire situation was hypothetical. You really need to read more carefully.

Bland
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1386
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Bland » Fri May 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Dangerousman wrote:I'm still waiting......


You're not the only one waiting for an answer to a question they've asked.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3614
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby jman111 » Fri May 04, 2012 4:39 pm

So, just to clarify, you object to hypotheticals based upon actual situations because those hypotheticals can be designed to favor one's conclusions.

BUT, no objections to purely hypothetical situations due to similar concerns? Purely hypothetical situations that are specifically designed to favor's one's conclusions are acceptable.

My, what a principled standard.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Fri May 04, 2012 5:42 pm

Bland wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:I'm still waiting......


You're not the only one waiting for an answer to a question they've asked.


Yeah, about that... you probably won't be too happy with my response.

acereraser
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1428
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:42 pm

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby acereraser » Fri May 04, 2012 5:51 pm

jman111 wrote:So, just to clarify, you object to hypotheticals based upon actual situations because those hypotheticals can be designed to favor one's conclusions.

BUT, no objections to purely hypothetical situations due to similar concerns? Purely hypothetical situations that are specifically designed to favor's one's conclusions are acceptable.

My, what a principled standard.


It is a wonder how many times this sketch has popped into my head when reading the gun threads. Well, hey, Happy Friday!

Sgt.: All right, bananas.

(All sigh.)

Sgt.: We haven't done them, have we? Right. Bananas. How to defend yourself against a man armed with a banana. Now you, come at me with this banana. Catch! Now, it's quite simple to defend yourself against a man armed with a banana. First of all you force him to drop the banana; then, second, you eat the banana, thus disarming him. You have now rendered him 'elpless.
Palin: Suppose he's got a bunch.
Sgt.: Shut up.
Idle: Suppose he's got a pointed stick.
Sgt.: Shut up. Right now you, Mr Apricot.
Chapman: 'Arrison.
Sgt.: Sorry, Mr. 'Arrison. Come at me with that banana. Hold it like that, that's it. Now attack me with it. Come on! Come on! Come at me! Come at me then! (Shoots him.)
Chapman: Aaagh! (dies.)
Sgt.: Now, I eat the banana. (Does so.)
Palin: You shot him!
Jones: He's dead!
Idle: He's completely dead!
Sgt.: I have now eaten the banana. The deceased, Mr Apricot, is now 'elpless.
Palin: You shot him. You shot him dead.
Sgt.: Well, he was attacking me with a banana.
Jones: But you told him to.
Sgt.: Look, I'm only doing me job. I have to show you how to defend yourselves against fresh fruit.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Fri May 04, 2012 5:54 pm

jman111 wrote:So, just to clarify, you object to hypotheticals based upon actual situations because those hypotheticals can be designed to favor one's conclusions.

BUT, no objections to purely hypothetical situations due to similar concerns? Purely hypothetical situations that are specifically designed to favor's one's conclusions are acceptable.

My, what a principled standard.


There's a big difference. Taking an actual incident and changing the facts hypothetically and then declaring a particular outcome to be the likely result is a waste of time because one can manipulate the hypothetically-introduced facts and imagine any possible outcome you wish.

With my question to Snoqueen, I proposed an entirely fictional set of facts and simply asked a question based on them, without changing the facts or asking her to make conclusions about the possible outcome. How does it "favor" my "conclusions?" She can choose any answer she wants.

If I said "There is an ice cream stand that sells, vanilla, chocolate, strawberry and mint. Which would you choose, or if you could select some other flavor, what would it be?" How have I manipulated her into choosing, say, chocolate?

Bland
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1386
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Bland » Fri May 04, 2012 5:57 pm

Look Johnny Dangerously, I have no choice but to assume that your refusal to answer is an admission that you can't provide any evidence that anybody on this Forum has ever taken the position you claim is common.

Since I don't recall ever hearing such a claim on these boards I wouldn't know where to look, but I will gladly eat crow if you can show me my memory is just faulty.

In the meantime, perhaps you should change your username to Don Quixote.

Bland
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1386
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Bland » Fri May 04, 2012 6:06 pm

How timely.
It would seem that Dangerboy isn't the only gun lover fighting against nonexistent prejudice.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-m ... e-to-blast

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Fri May 04, 2012 6:20 pm

Bland wrote:How timely.
It would seem that Dangerboy isn't the only gun lover fighting against nonexistent prejudice.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-m ... e-to-blast


No, I'm only fighting the existent prejudice. Laugh all you want, but Wisconsin has had a law that makes it illegal for an employer to fire someone because they're a gun owner for twenty years.

I guess if the signs you saw on some of the downtown businesses said "no colored" instead of "no guns" you be talking about nonexistent prejudices then too, right?

Bland
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1386
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Bland » Fri May 04, 2012 6:33 pm

Sigh. I will now ask for what I believe is the FIFTH time for you to demonstrate that anybody on this forum has "the opinion that guns aren't really used for legitimate self-defense very often." Because that's the position you're arguing against but there doesn't seem to be anybody arguing for it. You appear to be refuting nothing but phantoms. Why?

It sure would be simple to shut me up. Heck, I don't even care if you can show me that position is held by "a lot of people" as you claim. Two or three will suffice. Why do you refuse to do this?

Bland
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1386
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Bland » Fri May 04, 2012 6:35 pm

Dangerousman wrote:I guess if the signs you saw on some of the downtown businesses said "no colored" instead of "no guns" you be talking about nonexistent prejudices then too, right?

Now you're equating people with objects?

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Fri May 04, 2012 7:01 pm

Bland wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:I guess if the signs you saw on some of the downtown businesses said "no colored" instead of "no guns" you be talking about nonexistent prejudices then too, right?

Now you're equating people with objects?


No, I'm equating prejudice against two sets of people. It's the same message "we don't want your kind in here."

Ok, so let's say those signs say "no doo-rags or baggy pants." Is that, as you say, a nonexistent prejudice to not allow those objects?

Bland
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1386
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Bland » Fri May 04, 2012 7:12 pm

Dangerousman wrote:No, I'm equating prejudice against two sets of people. It's the same message "we don't want your kind in here."


It's official: You're a fucking imbecile.
Gunowners can go anywhere they fucking want- and you know this.
It's their guns that aren't welcome.
Just like pet owners are welcome at any restaurant, but they can't bring their cats too. Next you'll be arguing that requiring shirts in businesses violates the rights of nudists.

One more question: WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO FUCKING ANSWER MY QUESTION?

Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Detritus » Sat May 05, 2012 6:25 pm

Bland wrote:One more question: WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO FUCKING ANSWER MY QUESTION?

Cuz he ran away to start up all over again on another thread. If you seem him, ask him if he's figured our the difference between nouns and verbs yet.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Sat May 05, 2012 7:09 pm

Detritus wrote:
Bland wrote:One more question: WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO FUCKING ANSWER MY QUESTION?

Cuz he ran away to start up all over again on another thread. If you seem him, ask him if he's figured our the difference between nouns and verbs yet.


Have you figured out the difference between your head and your ass? You must be the only dumb fuck who doesn't understand a phrase like "Citizens defending with guns." "people painting with brushes" "diners eating with forks" is that gibberish to you too? Then you better get on the ass of the "Citizen offending with guns" guy too. Your posts are like graffiti-- only less artful. Pointless.

I don't work for that other dull tool, and the two of you together don't make a sharp one. I write according my my schedule, not his. So blow (verb) it out your ass, (noun) Fool.


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests