Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Duck and cover
Io
New Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby Io » Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:28 am

xouper wrote:However, you are mistaken about #4.

xouper wrote:Guns do have legitimate purposes other than just killing people.


I don't think I am. I'll concede that I probably should have said "a gun has no purpose other than killing", rather than 'use' since a gun could be said to be "used" defensively, but I'm fairly confident that no gun has ever been designed for defense purposes.

xouper wrote:Also, I disagree with your assertion that using a gun for self defense is not a "responsible use" of a gun.


I could argue that your quoted scenario is an example of non-use of a gun just as effectively as you could argue that it's a use, but that's just quibbling over a minor detail. I think your scenario is more of an example of something (a gun in this case) being used for a purpose different from that for which it was designed).

Of course I considered the notion of a gun being used in this way. The absence of a gun in the hands of an attacker is arguably as much of a win as the presence of a gun in the hands of the defender. There are so many "the attacker could be this" or "the defender could do that" details in arguing either case that you could work into potential narratives that it's only going to get bogged down, so I won't pursue it. It's true that both parties having guns evens out the odds, but then so does neither party having them. Both parties having them may produce the escalating arms-race to which ElectricMonk referred.

Let's just say that I can see your perspective. I just disagree with it.

I would also like to re-iterate that I wasn't really intending to make a case for or against gun use or control so much as I was pointing out the flaw in your initial argument.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10706
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:54 am

I agree with Xouper. Self Defense IS a legitimate use of Guns. That is on the Pro side of things not to be discounted just because it is a "plus." The balance/judgment comes NOT by failing to recognizing the pluses but as Xouper does by failing to appreciate all the Con's on the other side of the equation. There is a ready alternative to defense by gun and that is the police department. Criminals aren't stopped by guns, they are stopped by our court system, computer tracking programs talking to one another and so forth. Its why eventually, in the best of all worlds, Cops won't have guns either.

.................. because guns kill.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10486
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:06 am

Io wrote:
xouper wrote:However, you are mistaken about #4.

xouper wrote:Guns do have legitimate purposes other than just killing people.


I don't think I am. I'll concede that I probably should have said "a gun has no purpose other than killing", rather than 'use' since a gun could be said to be "used" defensively, but I'm fairly confident that no gun has ever been designed for defense purposes.


There are many guns that were designed for a purpose other than to kill people. Hunting comes first to mind, but also for sport shooting, including Olympic competitions. Most shotguns are not designed to be used against people.

And even guns that were designed to be lethal against people, they have a legitimate use in activities that do not involve human targets. In addition to hunting and sport shooting, there's also varmint control, as used for example by farmers and ranchers to control coyote populations in many western states.


Io wrote:
xouper wrote:Also, I disagree with your assertion that using a gun for self defense is not a "responsible use" of a gun.


I could argue that your quoted scenario is an example of non-use of a gun just as effectively as you could argue that it's a use, but that's just quibbling over a minor detail. I think your scenario is more of an example of something (a gun in this case) being used for a purpose different from that for which it was designed).


In one sense you are correct, the shotgun used by that 11-year-old girl was designed for hunting small game, not for self defense.

If you want to see examples of a gun actually being "used" in the sense you seem to mean it, I can also cite many examples of successful self defense in which the gun was fired at the attacker (sometimes killing him, sometimes not).


Io wrote:Of course I considered the notion of a gun being used in this way. The absence of a gun in the hands of an attacker is arguably as much of a win as the presence of a gun in the hands of the defender. There are so many "the attacker could be this" or "the defender could do that" details in arguing either case that you could work into potential narratives that it's only going to get bogged down, so I won't pursue it. It's true that both parties having guns evens out the odds, but then so does neither party having them. Both parties having them may produce the escalating arms-race to which ElectricMonk referred.

Let's just say that I can see your perspective. I just disagree with it.


We could argue those issues further, but I am willing to stop here and say we disagree.

Well, maybe one thing: For self defense, I would prefer to have the advantage of a gun, even when the attacker has no gun. A level playing field (i.e. even odds) is for sissies. I want every advantage I can get against the bad guys, who have no right to demand even odds.

You may have heard the cliche: "God Created Men and Sam Colt Made Them Equal.” That's how a 7 stone grandmother can defend against a 6 foot tall 15 stone young male attacker.

Io
New Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby Io » Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:27 am

xouper wrote:
Io wrote:
xouper wrote:However, you are mistaken about #4.

xouper wrote:Guns do have legitimate purposes other than just killing people.


I don't think I am. I'll concede that I probably should have said "a gun has no purpose other than killing", rather than 'use' since a gun could be said to be "used" defensively, but I'm fairly confident that no gun has ever been designed for defense purposes.


There are many guns that were designed for a purpose other than to kill people. Hunting comes first to mind, but also for sport shooting, including Olympic competitions. Most shotguns are not designed to be used against people.

And even guns that were designed to be lethal against people, they have a legitimate use in activities that do not involve human targets. In addition to hunting and sport shooting, there's also varmint control, as used for example by farmers and ranchers to control coyote populations in many western states.


Io wrote:
xouper wrote:Also, I disagree with your assertion that using a gun for self defense is not a "responsible use" of a gun.


I could argue that your quoted scenario is an example of non-use of a gun just as effectively as you could argue that it's a use, but that's just quibbling over a minor detail. I think your scenario is more of an example of something (a gun in this case) being used for a purpose different from that for which it was designed).


In one sense you are correct, the shotgun used by that 11-year-old girl was designed for hunting small game, not for self defense.

If you want to see examples of a gun actually being "used" in the sense you seem to mean it, I can also cite many examples of successful self defense in which the gun was fired at the attacker (sometimes killing him, sometimes not).


Io wrote:Of course I considered the notion of a gun being used in this way. The absence of a gun in the hands of an attacker is arguably as much of a win as the presence of a gun in the hands of the defender. There are so many "the attacker could be this" or "the defender could do that" details in arguing either case that you could work into potential narratives that it's only going to get bogged down, so I won't pursue it. It's true that both parties having guns evens out the odds, but then so does neither party having them. Both parties having them may produce the escalating arms-race to which ElectricMonk referred.

Let's just say that I can see your perspective. I just disagree with it.


We could argue those issues further, but I am willing to stop here and say we disagree.

Well, maybe one thing: For self defense, I would prefer to have the advantage of a gun, even when the attacker has no gun. A level playing field (i.e. even odds) is for sissies. I want every advantage I can get against the bad guys, who have no right to demand even odds.



Ok, well now we're beginning to argue at cross purposes since I'm not being specific about a type of gun. A gun is for killing regardless of whether someone makes one type for display only. And I'm not arguing about killing only humans either. Additionally I'd prefer to live in a world without hunting where people don't need to kill anything to have fun, but perhaps that's just me :D and is sidetracking anyhow. Gun sports wouldn't exist without guns existing first for the purpose of killing so that argument is flimsy too.
I'm perfectly willing to say that defense is a legitimate use of a gun. Guns are here to stay whether I or anyone else likes it or not (and I don't like it, but as I'm floundering towards saying I don't have a choice), but that's not their purpose.

xouper wrote:You may have heard the cliche: "God Created Men and Sam Colt Made Them Equal.” That's how a 7 stone grandmother can defend against a 6 foot tall 15 stone young male attacker.

<glib>You could educate people well enough so that they don't attack 7 stone grandmothers</glib>

Again, not arguing for taking guns away. They're here and no-one can get rid of them. There will always be gun-makers since the knowledge exists to make them. The genie is out of the bottle. So the bad guys will always have access to them and therefore the good guys need likewise. But ffs, work out which is which before you sell any.

Also... as another aside. An eleven year old girl has her own shotgun. :frown:

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10486
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:39 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:. . . Self Defense IS a legitimate use of Guns. That is on the Pro side of things not to be discounted just because it is a "plus." The balance/judgment comes NOT by failing to recognizing the pluses but as Xouper does by failing to appreciate all the Con's on the other side of the equation.


I am aware of (and "appreciate") all the "cons". They've certainly been discussed often enough on this forum over the years. Perhaps I "balance/judge" them differently than you do.


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: There is a ready alternative to defense by gun and that is the police department. Criminals aren't stopped by guns, they are stopped by our court system, . . .


I'm not quite sure what you meant when you say criminals aren't stopped by guns, but it seems factually incorrect.

More accurately, I would say that criminals have sometimes been stopped by people (civilians) with guns.

In the example I posted of the 11-year-old girl, she stopped the criminal with her gun, before the police could get there.

I assume you've seen the old thread full of similar examples of criminals being stopped by armed citizens before the police got there.

viewtopic.php?f=97&t=25360

And there's this example from 2015:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-uber-driver-shoots-gunman-met-0420-20150419-story.html

Where an Uber driver stopped a mass shooting in Chicago because he was carrying a gun and shot the bad guy. And did it before the police could get there. If he had waited for the police to arrive and handle it, people might have been killed by the bad guy.

And here's one of my favorites, which you've already seen from earlier in this very thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQiiHk_Lujw

Where the armed victim successfully stops an armed robber without ever firing a shot. A gun pointed at his face is a good way to persuade a bad guy to stop the attack and of course he then runs away. Threat stopped. That only works because the bad guy knows how lethal a gun can be. Pointing a bar of soap at the bad guy is not nearly as effective as a gun designed to kill.

Given the irrefutable examples of criminals being stopped by armed citizens, I confess I'm not sure what you mean when you say "criminals aren't stopped by guns." Perhaps you could clarify.

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby Phoenix76 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:55 am

Look, this post started out as an argument at to who the killer is. But I believe that you have all lost track of where you are going with the argument.

I've got three guns in my bedroom, all capable of delivering the necessary force to kill someone. But until someone picks up on of those guns, and points it at somebody else, and then pulls the trigger, nobody dies. The rifle by itself cannot kill someone. It take human intervention to make that gun a lethal weapon.

If you want to argue this suggestion that guns kill people, then do your research and introduce some logical thinking. Guns, of themselves, cannot kill people.

The killers in our world are people. Doesn't matter what resource they use in their endeavours, PEOPLE kill PEOPLE. Simple, easy as that.

Why do you all make something that is so simple, so complicated. The gun did not pull the trigger - YOU DID.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10486
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:00 am

Io wrote:Ok, well now we're beginning to argue at cross purposes since I'm not being specific about a type of gun.


That's entirely possible. The only way to find out is through mutual effort at understanding what the other person is trying to say. And I'll be the first to admit, when there is more than one way to interpret someone's words, I don't always choose the correct way. But give me another chance and I will eventually get it.


Io wrote:Gun sports wouldn't exist without guns existing first for the purpose of killing so that argument is flimsy too.


That's a good point that I had not seen made before.

And yet now, there are guns specifically designed for competition, that have nothing to do with killing anything.


Io wrote:
xouper wrote:You may have heard the cliche: "God Created Men and Sam Colt Made Them Equal.” That's how a 7 stone grandmother can defend against a 6 foot tall 15 stone young male attacker.

<glib>You could educate people well enough so that they don't attack 7 stone grandmothers</glib>


Well, you got me there. :D

I am tempted to expand on that and say, "Perhaps you could educate people well enough so that they don't attack anyone."


Io wrote:Also... as another aside. An eleven year old girl has her own shotgun. :frown:


Not so strange or unusual in the US. She was well trained. Take a look at an editorial posted by Pyrrho in another thread:

http://brenebrown.com/blog/2017/11/08/gun-reform-speaking-truth-bullshit-practicing-civility-affecting-change/

Brené Brown wrote:. . . There was nothing better than when the hunters came back from the hunting lease and twenty or thirty people would pack into our house or my aunt’s house to process deer meat, make tamales, tell stories, and laugh. My dad is the youngest of six, and I have twenty-four first cousins. There were a lot of mouths to feed. Hunting and fishing were as practical and necessary as they were fun for most of us.

We all had guns. We got BB guns when we were in second or third grade and hunting rifles by middle school, when most of us started hunting. Gun safety was no joke. In fact, we weren’t allowed to shoot a gun that we couldn’t take apart, clean, and put back together.

When you grow up hunting you have a very different understanding about the reality of guns. . . .


It's an interesting read, even if I don't agree with everything she says.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby TJrandom » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:44 am

Xouper, You wrote you but claim that you intended that you to not mean me, but rather to mean other people and that I misinterpret the meaning of you as you wrote it. Rediculous. Man up.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10486
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:07 pm

TJrandom wrote:Xouper, You wrote you but claim that you intended that you to not mean me, but rather to mean other people and that I misinterpret the meaning of you as you wrote it. Rediculous. Man up.


Sorry, but you don't get to tell me what I meant by what I wrote.

Here's the whole thing, again:

TJrandom wrote:It seems to me that your tactic is to make any thread that deals with guns so ascorbic that you can find a way to claim you are wronged, and get the thread locked. Not much for free speech, IMO.
xouper wrote:Your assertion is ridiculous. What you are doing here is blaming the victim. That's like saying she deserved to get raped because of the way she dressed. It's a faulty argument.

Just because someone doesn't like my argument is not license to attack me personally in violation of the rules.


The "you" in one sentence was referring to something completely different from the "someone" in the other sentence. And yet you persist in confusing the two.

I already explained that what the last sentence means is this:

Just because someone doesn't like my argument is not license for them to attack me personally in violation of the rules.

The two ways of phrasing it are semantically equivalent, as I already explained previously.

It was not an accusation that you personally had attacked me.

The misinterpretation is yours. Deal with it. And stop being an ass about it.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby TJrandom » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:14 pm

And now I`m an ass?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10486
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:20 pm

TJrandom wrote:And now I`m an ass?


No. I did not call you an ass. I said you were behaving like one.

Perhaps English is not your first language, and I overestimated your fluency with it.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby TJrandom » Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:44 pm

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:And now I`m an ass?


No. I did not call you an ass. I said you were behaving like one.

Perhaps English is not your first language, and I overestimated your fluency with it.


Coming from a person who confuses you with those people, that is rather low - connected to why you confuse legal use of a weapon with illegal use? Simply striking out when your argument fails?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10706
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:33 pm

"Sorry, but you don't get to tell me what I meant by what I wrote." ///// because I have my own private dictionary and grammar. Its YOUR fault you don't understand what I post as you refuse to let me explain until the opposite of what I said is understood.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19715
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:44 pm

I've told some of my favorite pinnipeds about this thread.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

Subaru7
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby Subaru7 » Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:42 am

xouper wrote: We understand why it is silly to blame cars when drunk drivers kill others. It is the driver who is to blame, not the object used.

We understand the fallacy of blaming "object X" when someone uses "object X" to do harm to others.

And yet, many people still commit the fallacy of blaming guns for the evil actions of certain people.

I blame the people who do their damnedest to create a society chock-a-block with guns and brainwashed people who are all too likely to use them.

If the USA were a rational society, it would outlaw the National Rifle Association as the Number One most dangerous terrorist organization --- right after the War Machine of the Military-Industrial Complex, of course! --- :roll:
.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19715
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:51 am

The problem isn't Americans, it's gun makers buying politicians.

3% of Americans, ~990,000 people, own 128,000,000 guns, half the guns in the country right now.

Of the remaining 97%, over half do not own a gun. The rest own one gun.

"America" is not mad about guns. Don't buy into the propaganda and we can start to get things done.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10486
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby xouper » Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:35 am

Subaru7 wrote:I blame the people who do their damnedest to create a society chock-a-block with guns and brainwashed people who are all too likely to use them.


There are millions of concealed carry permit holders in the US and the number is growing. If they were the problem, then we would have heard about it by now.

But the fact is, when you look at the conviction rate for gun crimes, concealed carry permit holder have a far lower rate of conviction than do police officers, which already have a very low rate of convictions for gun crimes.

The vast majority of gun owners are not the problem. Not even close.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10486
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby xouper » Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:45 am

Subaru7 wrote:If the USA were a rational society, it would outlaw the National Rifle Association as the Number One most dangerous terrorist organization ---


That's absurd.

The NRA is not a terrorist organization. Not even close. Not by the legal definition and not by any other definition, except maybe the one you made up on your own.

I assume you know it was an NRA member who stopped the Sutherland church shooting from being worse than it already was. It was a civilian with an AR-15 who first shot the bad guy, long before the police could get there.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10486
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby xouper » Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:52 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:The problem isn't Americans, it's gun makers buying politicians.


If that's what it takes to preserve the rights of the people (as described in the Second Amendment), then I am in favor of such lobbying efforts (as long as they are legal).


Gawdzilla Sama wrote:"America" is not mad about guns. Don't buy into the propaganda . . .


Exactly. And there is plenty of propaganda from both sides of this issue.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10486
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby xouper » Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:55 am

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:And now I`m an ass?


No. I did not call you an ass. I said you were behaving like one.

Perhaps English is not your first language, and I overestimated your fluency with it.


Coming from a person who confuses you with those people, that is rather low - connected to why you confuse legal use of a weapon with illegal use? Simply striking out when your argument fails?


I am not the one confused about what I meant. You are. You got caught misinterpreting what I wrote and now you are behaving like an ass about it. Grow up.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10486
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby xouper » Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:58 am

bobbo_the_TROLL wrote:"Sorry, but you don't get to tell me what I meant by what I wrote." ///// because I have my own private dictionary and grammar. Its YOUR fault you don't understand what I post as you refuse to let me explain until the opposite of what I said is understood.


What a crock of {!#%@}.

But then I expect nothing more than that from you.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10706
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:05 am

Whats more relevant?

A...........What you meant to say.

B.......... How everyone takes it?

"My, your wife has mighty fine looking tits." Assume this is a true statement.

a compliment, or an insult? Your values, or everyone elses?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10486
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby xouper » Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:11 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Whats more relevant?

A...........What you meant to say.

B.......... How everyone takes it?

"My, your wife has mighty fine looking tits." Assume this is a true statement.

a compliment, or an insult? Your values, or everyone elses?


I have explained this to you before. More than once.

The fact that you still do not get it does not surprise me.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10706
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:12 am

So..............you are saying its a compliment.

Everyone else disagrees.

That means: it sucks to be you: constantly misunderstood as you claim. BECAUSE....you refuse the feed back.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10486
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby xouper » Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:42 am

bobbo_the_TROLL wrote:So..............you are saying its a compliment.

Everyone else disagrees.

That means: it sucks to be you: constantly misunderstood as you claim. BECAUSE....you refuse the feed back.


Image

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10706
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:48 am

Ha, ha............you do know that troll does not mean you just lost an argument? Or is that "not what you meant?"

.....................................everyone else disagrees. Thats the thing about "language". Its what people take it to mean....not what you meant to say. Its like guns. What everyone else can see they are regardless of what you like to play with.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10486
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby xouper » Sat Nov 11, 2017 4:40 am

bobbo_the_TROLL wrote:Ha, ha............you do know that troll does not mean you just lost an argument? Or is that "not what you meant?"

.....................................everyone else disagrees. Thats the thing about "language". Its what people take it to mean....not what you meant to say. Its like guns. What everyone else can see they are regardless of what you like to play with.



Image

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10706
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:15 am

Honestly X.........you do raise the issue of trolling. That perverse pleasure in taking nonsense positions and arguing for them as if you actually believed it.

Perfect fit.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10486
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby xouper » Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:28 am

bobbo_the_TROLL wrote:Honestly X.........you do raise the issue of trolling. That perverse pleasure in taking nonsense positions and arguing for them as if you actually believed it.

Perfect fit.


When you get done running your mouth and wish to contribute something intelligent and relevant to the topic, then let me know.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby TJrandom » Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:51 am

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:And now I`m an ass?


No. I did not call you an ass. I said you were behaving like one.

Perhaps English is not your first language, and I overestimated your fluency with it.


Coming from a person who confuses you with those people, that is rather low - connected to why you confuse legal use of a weapon with illegal use? Simply striking out when your argument fails?


I am not the one confused about what I meant. You are. You got caught misinterpreting what I wrote and now you are behaving like an ass about it. Grow up.


Of course I was confused about what you meant - I just went by what you wrote.

And you are right about English not being my first language. Empathy, common decency, respect, mutual support, teamwork, and survival all came first. What is your excuse? Answer,or don`t - it doesn`t matter, since IMO, your use of the language to twist the dialog is tinted by your rather odd view of what serves the interests of humans. This will be my last post in this thread - so that I am not confused by your amoeba-like use of language.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10486
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby xouper » Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:07 am

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:I am not the one confused about what I meant. You are. You got caught misinterpreting what I wrote . . .


Of course I was confused about what you meant - I just went by what you wrote.


If there is any confusion (or ambiguity) about what I meant, then perhaps it would be more effective to ask for clarification. And then can we work together to reach a common understanding of what I meant.

It is not reasonable for you to insist you know better than I do what my words were intended to mean. When you do that, it is the classic straw man fallacy.

Most of us here are not professional writers, nor does this forum require posters to be held to high academic standards of writing. It is often the case on this forum that things are phrased in a way that has more than one possible interpretation, and there might be any number of forgivable reasons why that happens.

And yet there is only one correct  interpretation.

The only person qualified to say which interpretation is correct is the original author and no one else. When the original author explains further and clarifies what they meant, then the honorable and charitable thing to do is accept that clarification, since they know better than you do what they intended to say. There is no dishonor in conceding that your initial interpretation was mistaken. And there is no valid excuse for stubbornly holding onto a mistaken interpretation.

Those are just some of the many principles of honorable discourse on a forum. Those who violate those principles, as you have pigheadedly done in this thread, forfeit any respect that might be due their opinions.

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby Phoenix76 » Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:26 am

Reading through this thread, I have envisaged a number of responses. But then I read another reply, and changed my mind again.

Look, there can be no argument that the firing of a gun can kill people. Accepted, the gun cannot fire itself, it needs somebody to pull the trigger. So if you want to get absolutely technical, perhaps guns do not kill people, but the person who pulls the trigger does.

But if that person pulls the trigger on a child's "pop gun", then nobody will get killed. We are talking about guns with real bullets that will kill people if hit by that bullet.

Perhaps this is the old "Catch 22" argument. I don't know, but I imagine that the person who invented the gun did so to provide a means of defence when one was attacked by a person endeavouring to kill them.

Really this whole topic could be debated until the cows come home and no resolution would be made.

So maybe the answer is that "The misuse of guns can kill people". Yep, guns misused can kill people. And people misusing guns can kill people. Make up your own mind.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10486
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Postby xouper » Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:49 am

Phoenix76 wrote:So maybe the answer is that "The misuse of guns can kill people". Yep, guns misused can kill people. And people misusing guns can kill people. Make up your own mind.


That seems like a good way to put it. Thanks.


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest