Author Topic: assault weapon ban  (Read 9133 times)

0 Members and 12 Guests are viewing this topic.

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: assault weapon ban
« Reply #135 on: March 29, 2013, 04:47:41 PM »
Quote pyramids. :GA:

A game we can all play.

What are the rules?

and more important, what do you get if you win??

1. You have to quote anything you can think of.

Quote pyramids. :GA:

A game we can all play.

What are the rules?

and more important, what do you get if you win??

2. Gheyed. And you can share the joy of crashing the server eventually.

This

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: assault weapon ban
« Reply #136 on: March 29, 2013, 04:47:59 PM »
Quote pyramids. :GA:

A game we can all play.

What are the rules?

and more important, what do you get if you win??

1. You have to quote anything you can think of.

Quote pyramids. :GA:

A game we can all play.

What are the rules?

and more important, what do you get if you win??

2. Gheyed. And you can share the joy of crashing the server eventually.

This

is

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: assault weapon ban
« Reply #137 on: March 29, 2013, 04:48:22 PM »
Quote pyramids. :GA:

A game we can all play.

What are the rules?

and more important, what do you get if you win??

1. You have to quote anything you can think of.

Quote pyramids. :GA:

A game we can all play.

What are the rules?

and more important, what do you get if you win??

2. Gheyed. And you can share the joy of crashing the server eventually.

This

is

a

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: assault weapon ban
« Reply #138 on: March 29, 2013, 04:48:49 PM »
Quote pyramids. :GA:

A game we can all play.

What are the rules?

and more important, what do you get if you win??

1. You have to quote anything you can think of.

Quote pyramids. :GA:

A game we can all play.

What are the rules?

and more important, what do you get if you win??

2. Gheyed. And you can share the joy of crashing the server eventually.

This

is

a

pretty

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: assault weapon ban
« Reply #139 on: March 29, 2013, 04:49:15 PM »

Scrapheap

  • Guest

Offline Calandale

  • Official sheep shagger of the aspie underclass
  • Elder
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 41238
  • Karma: -57
  • Gender: Male
  • peep
    • The Game Box: Live!

Offline Jack

  • Reiterative Utterance of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Maniacal Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 14550
  • Karma: 0
  • You don't know Jack.
Re: assault weapon ban
« Reply #142 on: March 29, 2013, 05:49:22 PM »
:GA:

Offline Calandale

  • Official sheep shagger of the aspie underclass
  • Elder
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 41238
  • Karma: -57
  • Gender: Male
  • peep
    • The Game Box: Live!
Re: assault weapon ban
« Reply #143 on: March 29, 2013, 10:11:51 PM »

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: assault weapon ban
« Reply #144 on: March 29, 2013, 10:17:23 PM »
Lets not and say we did. :eyebrow:

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Repair
  • *****
  • Posts: 108879
  • Karma: 4482
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: assault weapon ban
« Reply #145 on: March 30, 2013, 03:43:05 AM »
And, i'm not discussing the other issues you bought up. If your culture is antigun, you have likely never had experience with a weapon, and therefore your opinion can not be seen as credible.

No foot in mouth comments, I keep engaging you without allowing you to bait me into a corner.

You've qualified, changed and moved the context of your initial statement so many times now that I leave it to the reader to spot the foot in your mouth. You've been in that corner a long time.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

- Albert Einstein

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Repair
  • *****
  • Posts: 108879
  • Karma: 4482
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: assault weapon ban
« Reply #146 on: March 30, 2013, 04:13:35 AM »
Had power in the same sense that Triumph of the Will had power??

and yes, the comparison is fair, they're both propoganda films.

Not saying it isn't. It does make a compelling case, though. And yes, that is indeed what I mean. It's a very good film. It's well made, it's well written and it has a very clear message.

Moore's 9/11 film was not bad but it lacked the drive that Columbine had.

Quote
Quote
Want to share with the class what you think he lied about and where?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy

I see controversy. I see accusations and Moore's replies. I can understand that his opinions are controversial and not everyone will agree, but if you are to call him a liar, I do think you need more than a Wikipedia overview.

Although my guess is that if you provide a Hitchens quote and I counter with a Moore reply, none of us will be the wiser.

Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine#Criticisms

Heston's feelings were hurt by the ending and Locheed tried to downplay what they do? Free rifle for a new bank account sequence was compressed? Yes it was, but that's not the point. It never was. You have to do better.

The film is, as you say, a propaganda film, and a wildly successful one at that. It is very well made and it convinces. That's the whole point. It may not be to your liking but it's a bit simplistic to dismiss Moore as a hack and a liar. He is neither.

Quote
It's been years since I've seen Bowling for Columbine and after that steaming pile of shit I couldn't be arsed into watching anything he directed. I'd have to endure the torture of watching it again to pick it apart, point by point.

If you were able to pick it apart, point by point, others would have, too, and it would all be out there. There is a controversy and there always was, but it's not as easy as that. You may not like it but it is not fiction.

It IS out there, just google "bowling for columbine lies" and you'll get plenty results.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

http://www.preventtruthdecay.com/mainmiscmoore.htm

http://bowlingfortruth.com/category/documentary/bowling-for-columbine/

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/columbine/Columbine4-12-02.pdf

http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=573

http://www.houseofdiabolique.com/archives/moore010504.html

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?24454-Long-and-thorough-list-of-lies-in-Michael-Moore-s-quot-Bowling-for-Columbine-quot

http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_3_michael_moore.html

http://www.cwob.com/movies/oscars2003/bfc.html

Need more deconstruction of Michael Moore's lies??

Read what I wrote. There's plenty of controversy.

Here is a reply from Michael Moore: http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/facts/bowling-columbine.

I find some of his closing comments especially illuminating and interesting:

Quote
The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them. Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero.

I find this very interesting. Could this be only hyperbole? Would the NRA avoid suing just to look good? I bet they would if there was half a chance to win. A quick check of their web page confirms this; see, for example, http://www.nraila.org/legal/litigation.aspx. Considering the editing Moore did to make them look worse in the film, I'm pretty sure they would have.

Their actions speak volumes, in my mind.

I know David Hardy has commented on this, of course, because Moore is right. The NRA wouldn't hesitate to sue if they had a chance of winning. They would have done so long before there was a film, actually. And Hardy knows this, so he does what he can to downplay the implications. Considering he wrote a book where he called Moore a fat stupid white man--in the title--he would, wouldn't he? It's an ongoing controversy for him. I wish he was better at designing a web page, though.

Moore, however, has moved on. He used to have a much larger page devoted to Columbine but it's gone now.

So controversy? Sure. Debunked? Hardly.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

- Albert Einstein

Offline TA

  • Rage Filled Brain of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 1819
  • Karma: 111
  • Gender: Male
  • Face my Squirrely Wrath!
Re: assault weapon ban
« Reply #147 on: March 30, 2013, 04:17:04 AM »
And, i'm not discussing the other issues you bought up. If your culture is antigun, you have likely never had experience with a weapon, and therefore your opinion can not be seen as credible.

No foot in mouth comments, I keep engaging you without allowing you to bait me into a corner.

You've qualified, changed and moved the context of your initial statement so many times now that I leave it to the reader to spot the foot in your mouth. You've been in that corner a long time.

What part of "I do not consider the opinion of someone who has not fired a gun valid" are you not getting? You can consider them valid if you so choose. There was no foot in mouth, just a bloody personal opinion that you went berserk over. I'm not giving up. Shall we continue?
The stupidity of humanity FILLS ME WITH RAGE!

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Repair
  • *****
  • Posts: 108879
  • Karma: 4482
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: assault weapon ban
« Reply #148 on: March 30, 2013, 04:52:46 AM »
Here's you first statement:

If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.

Here's your latest take on it:

If your culture is antigun, you have likely never had experience with a weapon, and therefore your opinion can not be seen as credible.

Can you spot the difference?

The first one was in response to jman who, I believe, is an American. I wasn't part of that discussion.

The last is in response to me and you are now qualifying your initial statement with "if your culture is..." and "you have likely never..."

For just a moment, let's ignore the qualification you made about the anti-gun culture because it raises other questions you have yet to address and focus on the fact that your first comment had no qualifications whatsoever. The message was clear: If you haven't fired a gun, your opinion of them is invalid.

Did you or did you not mean what you wrote?

Then, of course, I saw the comment and replied. We went a few rounds, me wanting to know who was qualified or not and you seemed to be thinking I was discussing banning guns when all I wanted was to find out whose opinions about guns were valid, in your opinion. I asked this but you never answered:

Quote
Let's say a teen is killed at a school shooting. The offender is 18 but unlicensed so he bought the gun privately. The teen's mother is understandably upset and advocates stricter gun control, eliminating the loophole that allowed the 18-yo to buy the gun from a private individual.

Should the mother's opinion only count if she had fired a gun?

You didn't answer this one. I still don't know if that mother has a valid opinion or not, in your view.

And I tried finding out what other areas you'd define similarly, and why. What things do you need to have tried in order to hold a valid opinion of them? Where do you draw the line and why?

Quote
Do you think you should have conceived at least one baby to be allowed to have an opinion regarding the use of contraceptives? Do you think you need to have had sex to be allowed an opinion regarding sex outside marriage? Should you have smoked pot before being allowed an opinion regarding legalising it?

But you've not answered those either, you've only moved the goalposts re your original statement. You now want to include anti-gun culture as a qualifying statement ("if your culture is anti-gun, your opinions aren't valid", basically).

Which is interesting. I come from a country that is not particularly anti-gun. We don't quite have the number of guns per household that you do, but we certainly aren't anti-gun and until fairly recent events, there wasn't much controversy surrounding the issues. Meaning that since I have also fired a gun, my opinions of them should be perfectly valid, don't you think?

Because it can't be that it's me specifically, right? It can't be that I've been anti-gun on this board on many previous occasions, right?

Or is it that you only think 'mericans are allowed an opinion? Is it that simple?

Let's try this again. Who is allowed an opinion and why? If you now choose to include culture in your definition, why does that matter? Why do you need to be from a pro-gun culture to hold a valid opinion? Tell me what the difference is.

And by all means, finally address that question about my fictional school shooting victim's mum.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

- Albert Einstein

Offline TA

  • Rage Filled Brain of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 1819
  • Karma: 111
  • Gender: Male
  • Face my Squirrely Wrath!
Re: assault weapon ban
« Reply #149 on: March 30, 2013, 06:54:18 AM »
I am not answering those questions.

You are again blatantly ignoring the fact that I said it was personal opinion, surprise, you can disagree with an opinion.

Also, you are taking everything out of context, spinning words, etc.

You said my credibility was on the line, more like my opinion is being scrutinized.

Also, you asked Calavera if he had fired a weapon.

If he has not, I would not give his opinion as much merit as I would give someone who has, the same applies to all.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2013, 06:58:30 AM by TA »
The stupidity of humanity FILLS ME WITH RAGE!