D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Keep banging the rocks together, lad. Eventually, a spark of logic might happen.
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Awesome U.S. gun/defensive laws.
- Thread starter BoganUSAFFLClerk
- Start date
ldmitruk
Active Member
Lot's. It gives anyone the ability to be judge and executioner. As noted in the video, there are people out there who will push this to the limit, and shot someone even if there is little to no threat to their being. It has been found that stand your ground has not resulted in a decrease in violent crime, and has lead to an increase in homicides, and fire arm related injuries.
In short the stand your ground laws just make it too easy for some to shot another person if they look at them sideways. That certainly would make me feel safer.
BoganUSAFFLClerk
Active Member
Obtuse.
BoganUSAFFLClerk
Active Member
Vast majority of gun shot wounds in the U.S. are non fatal and the vast majority of defensive uses don't involve actually firing the gun. The possibility of gun homicides is just that a possibility but then rare considering the ratios.
They can be prosecuted as it is stated in the law that you have to articulate serious bodily harm as a minimum or a forcible felony as a minimum or threat to life as a minimum. If they were not prosecuted there is something more to the story. It is also a possibility of a failure of government.
Yes if you potentially use a gun there will be an increase in stats related to gun use. This doesn't really mean anything without consideration of a reduction of crime. If a crime or self defense mostly goes unreported how do you accurately track these? There is no requirement to file a report if no legal damages are sustained. We are missing information. Obviously if people don't report it you can't actually track it accurately. There is no crime if you don't report the crime.
Looking at someone sidewise is not the legal standard that the law allows for. Again you have to justify the above conditions in order not to be prosecuted under the definitions of the law. Anything else is a complication and not the result of following he law.
That's not what happened, so stop lying - it's written there in black and white.
That's expressly what you wrote...
... but you tried to frame it as if it was me who had said it and then called it 'retarded logic' - if it was anyone's 'logic', it was yours.
You don't seem to realize we're all really well aware of stupid manipulative bullshit like this, and find it thick as fuck. Even more so when you keep doing it.
BoganUSAFFLClerk
Active Member
BoganUSAFFLClerk
Active Member
You're posting pictorial evidence showing that I am correct - how bizarre that you post a picture of you saying exactly the thing you pretend you didn't say!
You contended that if you were QAnon you would be reading or watching QAnon material, and you wouldn't be on a forum which you say is in the UK. It's a forum, QAnonGuy - it's STILL there, on this very page, everyone can read it, who do you think you're fooling?
This is obviously nonsensical dreck, and you can't even own it.
I guess you realize that the 'retarded logic' insult rather backfired so you're trying a game of 'nuhh uhhh' like any mature, capable adult would....
BoganUSAFFLClerk
Active Member
You're posting pictorial evidence showing that I am correct - how bizarre that you post a picture of you saying exactly the thing you pretend you didn't say!
What do you think the word "only" means?
First off where is your evidence that I am a Qanon guy where's your source for this? Where is the argument at all that I believe in strictly Qanon arguments?
You are the one assuming intent rather than proving it.
BoganUSAFFLClerk
Active Member
Ah so you have no proof basically to even base the argument. Bye.
Again QanonClown - you act as though the remainder of the thread has simply disappeared into oblivion.
Whereas, the rest of us are perfectly capable of reading the thread and looking at the context.
For example, they can look at post 81
Awesome U.S. gun/defensive laws. | Page 2 | League of Reason
leagueofreason.org.uk
Your argument says that the fact that you're here rather than reading or watching Qanon is itself sufficient to obviate you believing in Qanon conspiracy claptrap.
This is completely irrational nonsense - a non-sequitur.
People can still read it. It's right there in this thread.
And it is, as you suggested, "retarded logic" insomuch as it contains no logic at all.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
The best bit about that entire exchange is that he's denying his own antecedent and then denying having ever denied it and citing his denial as evidence that he didn't deny it. It's fucking recursive wrongness. Almost spherical! rofl.
It's almost like he doesn't understand logic, or something.
Highfuckenlarious.
It's almost like he doesn't understand logic, or something.
Highfuckenlarious.
Correction: I meant post 28 - I have no idea where I got 81 from.
I am still not sure whether it's because he just can't bring himself ever to admit an error, or because he genuinely is this clueless.
Whatever the case, it's rampantly clear that this is his first encounter with logical discourse. I think he's more at home with appeals to emotion.
We still don't know why a person who subscribes to X idea is somehow restricted to only watching and reading material about X idea, nor what the location of the server has to do with any of it.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
It would be difficult without mirth to conclude otherwise.
So, instead of using the forum software to either quote (when writing), or jump back a page or two to read the string of conversation (when reading), we should instead post highly selective, specific snaps of just the bits of posts we want to talk about, and that gives it context, presumably because of the yellow border around it....?
Selectively editing a snippet of conversation and putting a yellow border around it is called 'editing' - it's not the full context, it's the context the editor wants you to see - the assumption we're supposed to be buying into is something like 'your eyes can't lie'? This is either willfully inane, or naive to the point of delusion. Example: quote-mining. It's really easy to take a snippet of conversation and pretend that the writer meant something different.
e.g.
It's there, it's written above in post 50 by Qanon guy... I could chop that up real nice, pop a lime green (so much more seductive than yellow) border round it, and project it onto the sky.... and it would still be mendacious as hell, and every single person here would know it. Every single person here would know it.
That's the real issue; repeatedly using manipulative 'tricks' to try and score imaginary points in an imaginary game in which someone can win screams bad faith. Screams it from the 2nd post, in this case, and only be... come at me bros... more comical as it went on.
So no, I don't think I'll abandon employing my ability to read just to make clown games easier. Insisting that the forum functions don't work when they clearly do when everyone else uses them routinely is all part of the clown show.
But, I have to be absolutely honest here... the one single element of all this contorted and contrived nonsense that I have no personal experience to determine the truth value of is that the Ignore button doesn't work. QBro allegedly put Hackenslash on 'ignore' before - it always says 'take me seriously' when someone repeatedly tells you they're ignoring you... what are we going to do next, pass each other secret love letters?
I've never used the ignore button nor had any desire to, and have made many arguments against the existence of such a button on an internet forums many times over the years because it seems to me it can only harm discourse without offering any solutions. As such, I honestly cannot say whether in this particular claim he's right or wrong (except in the sense that it's obviously false to suggest that an ignore function not working has any bearing on whether the quote function also doesn't), and the only way to test the concept is to try it out.
So I will report back on its function.
Selectively editing a snippet of conversation and putting a yellow border around it is called 'editing' - it's not the full context, it's the context the editor wants you to see - the assumption we're supposed to be buying into is something like 'your eyes can't lie'? This is either willfully inane, or naive to the point of delusion. Example: quote-mining. It's really easy to take a snippet of conversation and pretend that the writer meant something different.
e.g.
It's there, it's written above in post 50 by Qanon guy... I could chop that up real nice, pop a lime green (so much more seductive than yellow) border round it, and project it onto the sky.... and it would still be mendacious as hell, and every single person here would know it. Every single person here would know it.
That's the real issue; repeatedly using manipulative 'tricks' to try and score imaginary points in an imaginary game in which someone can win screams bad faith. Screams it from the 2nd post, in this case, and only be... come at me bros... more comical as it went on.
So no, I don't think I'll abandon employing my ability to read just to make clown games easier. Insisting that the forum functions don't work when they clearly do when everyone else uses them routinely is all part of the clown show.
But, I have to be absolutely honest here... the one single element of all this contorted and contrived nonsense that I have no personal experience to determine the truth value of is that the Ignore button doesn't work. QBro allegedly put Hackenslash on 'ignore' before - it always says 'take me seriously' when someone repeatedly tells you they're ignoring you... what are we going to do next, pass each other secret love letters?
I've never used the ignore button nor had any desire to, and have made many arguments against the existence of such a button on an internet forums many times over the years because it seems to me it can only harm discourse without offering any solutions. As such, I honestly cannot say whether in this particular claim he's right or wrong (except in the sense that it's obviously false to suggest that an ignore function not working has any bearing on whether the quote function also doesn't), and the only way to test the concept is to try it out.
So I will report back on its function.
BoganUSAFFLClerk
Active Member
Look the thread is about U.S. gun law your pathetic little insults aren't going to get the time of day. It is clear you have no intention to actually the points being made here. You guys are done.