Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Doctor Amadeus]

That's nice, but facts don't care about your feelings. Because that's not factual.

You’re free to think that I don’t.

[unfilteredJW]

You’re free to think that I don’t.

Well, there you have it folks.

Just keep this post saved and attach it anytime he wants to be taken seriously.

[Endus]

That doesn't make me a liar, it makes you unable to read context, specifically when it comes to me because you disagree.

This isn't personal. I don't even know you. All I have to go by is your internal contradictions. You can't possibly believe all the things you say to be true, because you keep contradicting yourself. I don't care which is the false statement, but something is a falsehood.

You started out (this time) claiming it was about self-defense. Then you said it was because it's a 2nd Amendment right that can't be infringed. You can't have two primary reasons for supporting a thing. And when you introduce a new one when your first is factually debunked, it sure looks like a lie.

You're problem here is you are confusing an argument in a online forum and a debate. I didn't even address you specifically YOU just no started in on me and responded to my post about my statement.

Welcome to the Internet?

If you don't want public responses to your positions, don't post them in public discussion forums that invite such responses.

This is literally what forums like this are for.

I am not going to click on your links, because I have done so in the past, at times I have agreed with you and times I haven't. You aren't stupid, and I have flat out admitted when I am wrong or the fact you clearly know what you are talking about.

But, I disagree, and even when I agreed with you I have ALWAYS felt exactly what I expressed, because not only YOU but others also misrepresent arguments, cherry pick and try to have arguments that aren't their own through links.

Disagreeing with me and not being able to explain why in any rational sense or provide data to support your position means you're not even attempting an argument. You just want to have equal standing and credence to actual facts and data solely because you have blind faith in something. It's the same stance by flat-earthers who want the "controversy" taught in schools.

They don't have an argument, and neither do you, for exactly the same reasons. It doesn't matter how hard you think otherwise. No evidence to back your claim? No argument. And an admission of bad-faith engagement.

I am not saying YOU specifically do that, just that at times in times I have noticed you do.

"I'm not saying you do that, except for all the times that you do". Dude, just insult me straight-up. Don't try and hide your malice. It's shitty and it's false, but you won't even just be straight about it.

But at the end of the day NO, I don't care. Because more specifically to this issue, I am NOT going to debate you.

Insisting that you need evidence if you want to claim you have an argument isn't even a "debate". We can't get to having a debate, because you don't have an opening position from which to start one. You have a baseless, unfounded claim, which can just be summarily discarded, like my claim that I have Van Gogh's head in my basement and it's somehow totally alive and giving me painting lessons which is super cool. Vince likes Orange Fanta, of all things. Who knew?

Because 1 I don't trust you despite everything I have said, and even if I did YOU DON"T get to decide how me or anybody who has the RIGHT to defend themselves under the constitutions does so, especially under the bias and anti gun advocacy I feel you represent.

This isn't about "trust". That's why I provide fact-based links full of evidence. You can trust the facts. I'm pretty sure I have never, at any point in my time on these forums, ever asked anyone here to "just trust me on this."

That is a personal choice, everyone has what they feel qualifies as evidence.

There's objective, verifiable data, and then there's bullshit dishonest scammers claim is "evidence" when it isn't.

A stain on a wall resembling a hooded figure is not evidence that God put an image of the Virgin Mary on that wall and that proves God exists, for instance. Literally not evidence. The person claiming otherwise is either a liar or so deeply ignorant they don't know what the term means.

I don't need an argument or a justification neither does anyone else.

Weird that you engage on a discussion forum, then, since that's the purpose of these kinds of forums.

Gun ownership is a fundamental right, it shouldn't be infringed, and no control measures should be implemented in my opinion from anybody who feels they should decide who and how people should defend THEIR lives and property.

Not an argument. You could literally have made the same argument to defend slavery, or to deny women the right to vote. And people did. People who were wrong, I assume you'd agree. You're confusing "is" and "ought". We all agree that gun ownership "is" a civil right. The question is whether it "ought" to be a civil right. Your argument fails due to the is-ought problem.

Nobody's live and liberty should supersede the rights of others who work hard from being threatened, trespassed and stolen from. People have the right to security.

Again, internally contradictory. We've already been over the facts of how gun ownership increases mortality and injury rates across the board. If life, liberty, and security were your reasons, you'd oppose the 2nd Amendment. Since gun ownership works against all three.

I don't agree, I think shooting innocent defenseless people who are no threat is a huge sign of a mental disorder.

Well, you don't get to decide that. You can believe it, the same way you can believe that 1+1=3 or that a potato is a fruit, but that just means you're wrong and too stubborn to listen to anyone about it.

[Doctor Amadeus]

This isn't personal. I don't even know you. All I have to go by is your internal contradictions. You can't possibly believe all the things you say to be true, because you keep contradicting yourself. I don't care which is the false statement, but something is a falsehood.

You don't get to determine that, your interpretation of evidence or facts, doesn't determine that either.

You started out (this time) claiming it was about self-defense. Then you said it was because it's a 2nd Amendment right that can't be infringed. You can't have two primary reasons for supporting a thing. And when you introduce a new one when your first is factually debunked, it sure looks like a lie.

I can, I don't need your permission and one idea isn't in conflict with the other. If anything they are a part of the same thing.

[QUOTE=Endus;54043091]Welcome to the Internet?

If you don't want public responses to your positions, don't post them in public discussion forums that invite such responses.

This is literally what forums like this are for.

No it isn't. This is a gaming forum, meaning entertainment, this particular forum is for political conversation and the thread is about Gun Control. Not yours or anyone else's pulpit from which to preach morality and your interpretations of it and the law.

Disagreeing with me and not being able to explain why in any rational sense or provide data to support your position means you're not even attempting an argument. You just want to have equal standing and credence to actual facts and data solely because you have blind faith in something. It's the same stance by flat-earthers who want the "controversy" taught in schools.

You not understanding what I am saying, and me Not accepting your interpretations isn't something I have to work out.

They don't have an argument, and neither do you, for exactly the same reasons. It doesn't matter how hard you think otherwise. No evidence to back your claim? No argument. And an admission of bad-faith engagement.

There's my explanation and you not accepting it, and me not caring if you accept it. That isn't bad faith or bad engagement.

"I'm not saying you do that, except for all the times that you do". Dude, just insult me straight-up. Don't try and hide your malice. It's shitty and it's false, but you won't even just be straight about it.

Not labeling you specifically, but having my own objective opinion again are not concepts in conflict.

Insisting that you need evidence if you want to claim you have an argument isn't even a "debate". We can't get to having a debate, because you don't have an opening position from which to start one. You have a baseless, unfounded claim, which can just be summarily discarded, like my claim that I have Van Gogh's head in my basement and it's somehow totally alive and giving me painting lessons which is super cool. Vince likes Orange Fanta, of all things. Who knew?

This isn't a debate, I reject your position both because of where you speak from, and the position from which you disseminate information.

This isn't about "trust". That's why I provide fact-based links full of evidence. You can trust the facts. I'm pretty sure I have never, at any point in my time on these forums, ever asked anyone here to "just trust me on this."

It is about trust for me, which is why I won't be accepting any arguments from you on the subject.

There's objective, verifiable data, and then there's bullshit dishonest scammers claim is "evidence" when it isn't.

A stain on a wall resembling a hooded figure is not evidence that God put an image of the Virgin Mary on that wall and that proves God exists, for instance. Literally not evidence. The person claiming otherwise is either a liar or so deeply ignorant they don't know what the term means.

Sounds like you are talking about religion and have personal bias, again not something up for debate or discussion with me, from you.


Weird that you engage on a discussion forum, then, since that's the purpose of these kinds of forums.

Not an argument. You could literally have made the same argument to defend slavery, or to deny women the right to vote. And people did. People who were wrong, I assume you'd agree. You're confusing "is" and "ought". We all agree that gun ownership "is" a civil right. The question is whether it "ought" to be a civil right. Your argument fails due to the is-ought problem.

You could and I wouldn't take you anymore serious than some guns owners that find it important to bring an AR-15 to Starbucks to make a point about the 2nd Amendment.

I literally wouldn't expect much of argument or debate from them or you.


The fact is for me, my personal experience, and where it checks with EVERYONE I have ever known who keeps legal firearms. We have the right to do so guaranteed by the constitution, we will go on supporting that right to defend and protect our lives, and our families, regardless to YOUR opinion or objection to that in a democracy.

Again, internally contradictory. We've already been over the facts of how gun ownership increases mortality and injury rates across the board. If life, liberty, and security were your reasons, you'd oppose the 2nd Amendment. Since gun ownership works against all three.

I don't believe that it does at all, not even a little, I think gun ownership is vital to democracy and allows individuals that right and responsibility of protecting themselves, and their home period.

Well, you don't get to decide that. You can believe it, the same way you can believe that 1+1=3 or that a potato is a fruit, but that just means you're wrong and too stubborn to listen to anyone about it.

I get to decide that, just like that. Because like the other freedoms I enjoy, I enjoy the freedom to think how I like too which includes rejecting any nonsense to me that sounds like Shooting unarmed innocent people is a normal and healthy mindset. It's a disorder, and YOU are never going to convince me otherwise.

[Endus]

There's my explanation and you not accepting it, and me not caring if you accept it. That isn't bad faith or bad engagement.

It is. Your explanation does not hold up to scrutiny, and is not based on any set of facts. It's not about me "not accepting" it; you've given no one any reason to accept it.

You're just openly stating an opinion you admit you're unwilling to back up, and you're expecting us to give it equal credence with reality. That's bad-faith engagement. You could make up literally anything and take the same stance, no matter how lunatic. It would be just as dishonest.

This isn't a debate, I reject your position both because of where you speak from, and the position from which you disseminate information.

"Where I speak from"? If you mean ideologically, then you mean from the grounds that analysis of the known facts is the only way to determine truth from falsehood? That's what you have a problem with?

And "the position from which you disseminate information"? You mean, a forum poster? Like literally all of us, including yourself?

It is about trust for me, which is why I won't be accepting any arguments from you on the subject.

So plugging your ears to reality because you've got a personal beef with me for some reason? Not helping your case.

I don't believe that it does at all, not even a little, I think gun ownership is vital to democracy and allows individuals that right and responsibility of protecting themselves, and their home period.

And you would be objectively incorrect, since there's plenty of democratic nations with better representation than the USA and who don't support anything like the 2nd Amendment.

Again, you don't get to have your own facts. We all have the same set of facts to work from. Cite your sources.

I get to decide that, just like that. Because like the other freedoms I enjoy, I enjoy the freedom to think how I like too which includes rejecting any nonsense to me that sounds like Shooting unarmed innocent people is a normal and healthy mindset. It's a disorder, and YOU are never going to convince me otherwise.

What you're saying is you get to imagine up whatever crazy nonsense you want and we can't stop you from believing it.

Well, sure. Same with flat-earthers, same with creationists, same with people who worry about the CIA's involvement with the molemen and the Greys.

If you want to be taken as a serious person, who has opinions other people should respect as legitimate, you're gonna have to do better. Until you start backing up your claims with facts, you're in the same category as the above.

[Doctor Amadeus]

It is. Your explanation does not hold up to scrutiny, and is not based on any set of facts. It's not about me "not accepting" it; you've given no one any reason to accept it.

When did I ask?

You're just openly stating an opinion you admit you're unwilling to back up, and you're expecting us to give it equal credence with reality. That's bad-faith engagement. You could make up literally anything and take the same stance, no matter how lunatic. It would be just as dishonest.

Yes, and yes I could, but I am not, because I am not here to teach to debate every opinion or argue everyone else's reasons.

"Where I speak from"? If you mean ideologically, then you mean from the grounds that analysis of the known facts is the only way to determine truth from falsehood? That's what you have a problem with?

I don't have a problem with anything. I just view your position as someone who thinks very highly of themselves, and think you think you know what is best based on whatever facts you interpret.

And "the position from which you disseminate information"? You mean, a forum poster? Like literally all of us, including yourself?

When you find me trying to hound people down on a daily basis with arguments over shit like flat earth or anything else I personally find absurd. Otherwise know. if I engage I might ask about or give an opinion in due course of dialogue. I would literally never invest the time you do to change some ones mind the earth isn't flat.

So plugging your ears to reality because you've got a personal beef with me for some reason? Not helping your case.

You started replying to me, I haven't said anything to you initially.

And you would be objectively incorrect, since there's plenty of democratic nations with better representation than the USA and who don't support anything like the 2nd Amendment.

I don't live in those places and glad I don't.

Again, you don't get to have your own facts. We all have the same set of facts to work from. Cite your sources.

And I'm never going to. Because success or fail in or on any argument any thoughts would come from myself or non at all.

What you're saying is you get to imagine up whatever crazy nonsense you want and we can't stop you from believing it.

No YOU couldn't

Well, sure. Same with flat-earthers, same with creationists, same with people who worry about the CIA's involvement with the molemen and the Greys.

You're no authority to me for school of information in anyway, I would go for spiritual information or religion. As for the rest, I am not worried about or believe in any of that so...

If you want to be taken as a serious person, who has opinions other people should respect as legitimate, you're gonna have to do better. Until you start backing up your claims with facts, you're in the same category as the above.

Not true, and you again are no authority I wouldn't trust for any of the above. I don't care about being taken seriously by echo chambers or people who gladly agree with everything because of who saying something as opposed to what they are saying.

People I care about are good people, sincere people, individuals of merit and substance that aren't more worried about optics and how things look, rather than how they are.

People who challenge established thoughts based on reason, and battle in Arenas that matter, and most importantly demonstrate rather than talk up anything and everything.

People who take 3 seconds to decide or say something negative or anything just for effect, I am not going worry about that.


I started today in this thread replying to a very refreshing post of wisdom and knowledge on here that I check back to from time to time. I responded because I enjoyed the comment stated. That's it.


A person right to defend themselves, for no other reason is a good enough reason to defend the right to the 2nd Amendment.

[Draco-Onis]

You're no authority to me for school of information in anyway, I would go for spiritual information or religion. As for the rest, I am not worried about or believe in any of that so...

You may want to argue with this guy then.

People I care about are good people, sincere people, individuals of merit and substance that aren't more worried about optics and how things look, rather than how they are.

People who challenge established thoughts based on reason, and battle in Arenas that matter, and most importantly demonstrate rather than talk up anything and everything.

You two should get together and sort this out since you have opposing points of views.

A person right to defend themselves, for no other reason is a good enough reason to defend the right to the 2nd Amendment.

While I agree with this sentiment it's pretty clear the United States is doing it very wrong. There are countries with the right to bear arms that don't have mass shootings regularly and 6 year old with guns. It's the restrictions around it people used to laugh at liberals because they said conservatives want the wild west now it's no longer funny. You have republicans voting AGAINST stopping kids from open carry and allowing people to have guns without a license. They are literally giving guns with anyone with a pulse regardless of age.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It's always telling when the gun nutters, rather than addressing the core arguments being made, instead try to pick holes in statistics and studies that show that guns are in fact incredibly dangerous for the average Joe to own.

[unfilteredJW]

When did I ask?



Yes, and yes I could, but I am not, because I am not here to teach to debate every opinion or argue everyone else's reasons.





I don't have a problem with anything. I just view your position as someone who thinks very highly of themselves, and think you think you know what is best based on whatever facts you interpret.



When you find me trying to hound people down on a daily basis with arguments over shit like flat earth or anything else I personally find absurd. Otherwise know. if I engage I might ask about or give an opinion in due course of dialogue. I would literally never invest the time you do to change some ones mind the earth isn't flat.



You started replying to me, I haven't said anything to you initially.





I don't live in those places and glad I don't.



And I'm never going to. Because success or fail in or on any argument any thoughts would come from myself or non at all.





No YOU couldn't



You're no authority to me for school of information in anyway, I would go for spiritual information or religion. As for the rest, I am not worried about or believe in any of that so...



Not true, and you again are no authority I wouldn't trust for any of the above. I don't care about being taken seriously by echo chambers or people who gladly agree with everything because of who saying something as opposed to what they are saying.

People I care about are good people, sincere people, individuals of merit and substance that aren't more worried about optics and how things look, rather than how they are.

People who challenge established thoughts based on reason, and battle in Arenas that matter, and most importantly demonstrate rather than talk up anything and everything.

People who take 3 seconds to decide or say something negative or anything just for effect, I am not going worry about that.


I started today in this thread replying to a very refreshing post of wisdom and knowledge on here that I check back to from time to time. I responded because I enjoyed the comment stated. That's it.


A person right to defend themselves, for no other reason is a good enough reason to defend the right to the 2nd Amendment.

The amount of cognitive dissonance is just amazing.

[Doctor Amadeus]

You may want to argue with this guy then.

Arguments are a two way street, but in general, this issue we already have. It's a dead horse now.

You two should get together and sort this out since you have opposing points of views.

No the fuck we should not.

While I agree with this sentiment it's pretty clear the United States is doing it very wrong. There are countries with the right to bear arms that don't have mass shootings regularly and 6 year old with guns. It's the restrictions around it people used to laugh at liberals because they said conservatives want the wild west now it's no longer funny. You have republicans voting AGAINST stopping kids from open carry and allowing people to have guns without a license. They are literally giving guns with anyone with a pulse regardless of age.

Well again we have more than few differences in the U.S vs others, although we have similarities, the U.S is very unique great and horrific ways. I support gun control, regulation, I do not support taking guns away in general.

And no statistics on shootings or claims will change that.


People have the right to defend themselves, and honestly I think I have become less convinced of restrictions than I used to.

A Big Part of that is because of WHO already has them.

[Draco-Onis]

Well again we have more than few differences in the U.S vs others, although we have similarities, the U.S is very unique great and horrific ways. I support gun control, regulation, I do not support taking guns away in general.

And no statistics on shootings or claims will change that.


People have the right to defend themselves, and honestly I think I have become less convinced of restrictions than I used to.

A Big Part of that is because of WHO already has them.

if facts won't sway you one way or another why argue? I don't see how much less restrictive you can get in the US apart from allowing people to have any weapon period.

[Doctor Amadeus]

if facts won't sway you one way or another why argue? I don't see how much less restrictive you can get in the US apart from allowing people to have any weapon period.

The problem is how we arrive at those facts. Evidence is part of it, it requires a deeper dive especially when it comes to more contentious issues. In this case or many others the problem is facts aren't the problem. The problem comes down to the information.


To be Honest like Abortion I think gun control is a tough row to hoe, the another issue is trust.


Sometimes you just have advocates on either side, people that think arming every 5 year old would also be a good idea, and others who think no gun should be allowed to anyone based certain evidence of what they might do, and what could happen. In a world full of hammers, everything is a nail can be an approach it's not the only approach.

[Draco-Onis]

The problem is how we arrive at those facts. Evidence is part of it, it requires a deeper dive especially when it comes to more contentious issues. In this case or many others the problem is facts aren't the problem. The problem comes down to the information.


To be Honest like Abortion I think gun control is a tough row to hoe, the another issue is trust.


Sometimes you just have advocates on either side, people that think arming every 5 year old would also be a good idea, and others who think no gun should be allowed to anyone based certain evidence of what they might do, and what could happen. In a world full of hammers, everything is a nail can be an approach it's not the only approach.

Unless you can disprove those facts categorically you are no different than the extremists sticking to your point of view regardless of evidence. It's one thing to vaguely say methods are flawed another to prove it. Gun control in the US is not that tough since we don't have the basics like not letting kids carry guns in public, stopping crazy people and abusers from having guns, in many states all you need is a pulse.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Unless you can disprove those facts categorically you are no different than the extremists sticking to your point of view regardless of evidence. It's one thing to vaguely say methods are flawed another to prove it. Gun control in the US is not that tough since we don't have the basics like not letting kids carry guns in public, stopping crazy people and abusers from having guns, in many states all you need is a pulse.

Here is what I want you to do, real simple, take a BIG PAUSE as you read this.... THEN Consider this.


WHY?


More specifically, regardless to the argument, regardless to the debate, what is the REASON, and MORE impotently what is the end result.


THE REASON that is import and almost more important than any argument and debate is because at the end of the day, our efforts and more importantly the results are what matter.

Ideas, and engaging in debate and argument through the Structure of Logic Evidence and Facts, along with Structured REASON Passion from our feelings. These are the components and foundation of progressive dialog.

On the flip side of that is mocking, sarcasms, and over all theater for effect. These are the wrecking balls for the destruction for whatever is built on anything created from dialog.


The POINT is this.


Before we EVEN start on a conversation, if the person you engage with is engage in doing one, while the other is committed to do the other. Nothing is going to be built.




Bottom line. Even if you do everything right, as human beings we can be wrong, and for me the Start is the WHY. I personally don't want to build anything on a foundation where the end result is house built to be a prison.


That's the gun control debate from my perspective.



WE COULD, WE COULD debate logically and reasonably for some of the most HORRIFIC ideas to ever materialize, it still wouldn't matter and the end of he day if what is built is a Nightmare.

In my life I would say I have been wrong more than I have been right, however as I have gone forward I have gotten a lot better. And at best at BEST in my real life, I would say if we broke it down to percentages. I have been at about 30 - 40% on average. And my best in what I know and have good solid information, around 60 - 70%.

But guess what at the end of the day I would say I'm average.


The best in the world, Academics people who KNOW more than me, my guess is on average aren't much better. And Nobody is a 100% right regardless to their Data or how clean their arguments.

A Man in Germany lead an entire country based on Passion, and eventually logic and reason of some of the greatest minds on earth. Guess what they were wrong too, and consequences of them being wrong lead to that horror I mention.



So NO. I am not going to argue with everyone, and the reason mostly for that is if I don't believe at ALL where the dialogue can go or the end results of the dialogue, I am going to save my energy for more important conversations, unless it's just for entertainment.

[Endus]

So NO. I am not going to argue with everyone, and the reason mostly for that is if I don't believe at ALL where the dialogue can go or the end results of the dialogue, I am going to save my energy for more important conversations, unless it's just for entertainment.

Then why are you engaging in argument here, in the first place?

It's not to convince anyone; you're not making an argument.
It's not to so your opinion can be considered, because you give no reason for it to be given any credence whatsoever.
It's not to come to a better understanding, because you've been actively hostile to the idea of better-informing yourself as to the fact and truth, a position you re-iterated here.

You are, in fact, arguing from a position of emotion and willful ignorance. By your own explicit admission, I'll note. It isn't logic or reason that leads to the worst extremes of human behaviour, it's positions based on emotion and a refusal to consider reason. The Nazis didn't logic themselves into the Holocaust; that was built out of bigotry and ignorance and hatred.

This is a particularly egregious claim because secular humanist theory is the primary moral framing of the modern world, and it's entirely rationally and factually determinable. Unlike religious morality, which often supports ideas like "genocide the unbelievers" or "rape children as long as you marry them first" or "enslaving people is totes okay". To cite actual relatively recent examples from history.

[Draco-Onis]

Here is what I want you to do, real simple, take a BIG PAUSE as you read this.... THEN Consider this.


WHY?

Because that's how you grow up as a person and learn things, there's nothing wrong with being wrong. It's your life you can stagnate as a person and stay the same it is your choice but there are so many things that you cannot know and assuming you are always right is a recipe for disaster.

A Man in Germany lead an entire country based on Passion, and eventually logic and reason of some of the greatest minds on earth. Guess what they were wrong too, and consequences of them being wrong lead to that horror I mention.



So NO. I am not going to argue with everyone, and the reason mostly for that is if I don't believe at ALL where the dialogue can go or the end results of the dialogue, I am going to save my energy for more important conversations, unless it's just for entertainment.

fascism and nationalism aren't based on logic or reason only passion that's what your stance is that passion should always overcome reason and logic. Let's use your example you are basically the guy saying that man in Germany never existed or wasn't that bad and are fine with doing it again because it doesn't suit your world of view. You are immune to facts and evidence therefore you live in your own reality.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Then why are you engaging in argument here, in the first place?

It's not to convince anyone; you're not making an argument.
It's not to so your opinion can be considered, because you give no reason for it to be given any credence whatsoever.
It's not to come to a better understanding, because you've been actively hostile to the idea of better-informing yourself as to the fact and truth, a position you re-iterated here.

You are, in fact, arguing from a position of emotion and willful ignorance. By your own explicit admission, I'll note. It isn't logic or reason that leads to the worst extremes of human behaviour, it's positions based on emotion and a refusal to consider reason. The Nazis didn't logic themselves into the Holocaust; that was built out of bigotry and ignorance and hatred.

This is a particularly egregious claim because secular humanist theory is the primary moral framing of the modern world, and it's entirely rationally and factually determinable. Unlike religious morality, which often supports ideas like "genocide the unbelievers" or "rape children as long as you marry them first" or "enslaving people is totes okay". To cite actual relatively recent examples from history.

Every discussion isn't an argument, one doesn't need to engage in one to do the other.

This isn't a trial, or congress, it's a online gaming forum. Nobody here needs to have an argument for their views or opinion.


I am not going to debate with a Nazi, because someone who's a Nazi isn't typically arguing from ignorance, they are arguing from a choice, and their choices are pretty clear.

- - - Updated - - -

Because that's how you grow up as a person and learn things, there's nothing wrong with being wrong. It's your life you can stagnate as a person and stay the same it is your choice but there are so many things that you cannot know and assuming you are always right is a recipe for disaster.

It doesn't matter if you are always right, and arguing for the sake of arguing doesn't make a person right. Neither does method or anything else. More importantly in the end it doesn't change anything in every case therefor it's not important to argue with everyone.

fascism and nationalism aren't based on logic or reason only passion that's what your stance is that passion should always overcome reason and logic. Let's use your example you are basically the guy saying that man in Germany never existed or wasn't that bad and are fine with doing it again because it doesn't suit your world of view. You are immune to facts and evidence therefore you live in your own reality.

Not immune to facts and evidence can be subjective. I am not going to argue with Nazi, because even in some bizarre instance they were right. They are Nazi's. They are making a choice, so am I. There isn't any argument, logic or reason that matters. I am never supporting a Nazi. Similarly I am never supporting any measure of gun control especially by those who don't want to take them away because they don't believe in the 2nd amendment.

[Edge-]

https://www.al.com/news/2023/02/sand...ehensible.html

Know what's wonderful? Surviving a school shooting and then going off to college and surviving a second one.

But really, there's nothing we can do. College students running around panicked as armed cops are trying to find an active shooter? Just another day in THE FREEEST COUNTRY IN THE GOD DAMNED WORLD THANK YOU VERY MUCH

[unfilteredJW]

Every discussion isn't an argument, one doesn't need to engage in one to do the other.

This isn't a trial, or congress, it's a online gaming forum. Nobody here needs to have an argument for their views or opinion.


I am not going to debate with a Nazi, because someone who's a Nazi isn't typically arguing from ignorance, they are arguing from a choice, and their choices are pretty clear.

- - - Updated - - -



It doesn't matter if you are always right, and arguing for the sake of arguing doesn't make a person right. Neither does method or anything else. More importantly in the end it doesn't change anything in every case therefor it's not important to argue with everyone.





Not immune to facts and evidence can be subjective. I am not going to argue with Nazi, because even in some bizarre instance they were right. They are Nazi's. They are making a choice, so am I. There isn't any argument, logic or reason that matters. I am never supporting a Nazi. Similarly I am never supporting any measure of gun control especially by those who don't want to take them away because they don't believe in the 2nd amendment.

Man your double downs are getting wacky.

[Santti]

https://www.al.com/news/2023/02/sand...ehensible.html

Know what's wonderful? Surviving a school shooting and then going off to college and surviving a second one.

But really, there's nothing we can do. College students running around panicked as armed cops are trying to find an active shooter? Just another day in THE FREEEST COUNTRY IN THE GOD DAMNED WORLD THANK YOU VERY MUCH

Well, I can't see any other solution to this problem, other than to allow students and teachers to arm themselves as they please. To protect themselves, of course. And also because freedoms, or whatever.