RE: Another "successful" carry story

RE: Another "successful" carry story (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Staleek -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/24/2015 10:09:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Slow down, keyboard cowboy. Have a read . . . was trying to partly bail-out your ass, and said much the same thing (except about the marketing). Breathe. Decide where you do exactly stand, and support that. Please don't try to read emotions into my posts. I tend to be a very much on the "cold and dead" side in that regard, which can ironically come across as hard nosed and angry sometimes when people can't actually see my demeanor as I communicate. Internet - bad communication. I blame all the Kafka crap I read over and over again as a youngster. That aside, are you denying that there is such a culture of machismo surrounding firearms in the USA? Or at least denying it's relevancy or impact on gun violence? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm genuinely curious.

Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/24/2015 10:19:02 AM)
Well, what do you suppose is clouding your judgment and reading comprehension, then? I've already answered your questions. You're picking a sub-group and claiming it's representative. Hence, you're assuming all sorts of erroneous straw men.

BamaD -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/24/2015 10:19:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Trying to suppress the data collection smacks of agenda overtly. Pretend otherwise if it suits your kool-aid consumption. And yet, despite the paranoia of some, nobody came to take your guns, even given that "grossly distorted data." The fact that it didn't lead directly to confiscation doesn't mean they didn't have their conclusions first and warped the data to fit them. Trying to suppress liars smack of wanting a level playing field. ...and that's nothing but your unsupported paranoia. Exactly like the joke that says "just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not really out to get me." A deep kool-aid drinker. No one anywhere is calling for an outright ban on guns, nor, despite the tin foil hats, is anyone secretly plotting that behind closed doors. But the faithful are buying it, which allows the NRA to function as the industry group it has become. And you don't have to take my word for it. Here's a business analysis, showing how the industry funds the NRA: http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1 quote: "Today's NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry," said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. "While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the 'freedom' of individual gun owners, it's actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry Or this article from the well-respected Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/ quote: the modern NRA's hard-line political stances, which often seem out of step even with the majority of gun-owners, and its deepening industry ties have led some to argue that the group is little more than a corporate lobbyist dressed up in woodsy camouflage. If there's some vast conspiracy afoot to take your guns, you'll have to prove it. Because if there is, they're doing a piss poor job of it! [8\|] BS their first study was a blatant hit job, just because it didn't get everything doesn't mean they didn't , and it has been proven repeatedly. Do you promote people who lie about you? Or do you think that lying is ok if it promotes your agenda? Or do you just hate guns so much that it doesn't matter. I am not saying you take any or all of these positions, I am asking, so don't go into your song and dance about insulting you.

Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/24/2015 10:27:05 AM)
Well then, why are you wasting space trying to pretend you aren't? * Yes, of course, I promote people who lie about me all the time * I think lying is fine as long as it promotes my agenda * I hate guns so much that it doesn't matter * I think you're really insightful, logical, and hold a balanced, reasoned position. Irony. It's not what Tony Stark does. What is wrong with you? Seriously -- what is wrong with you? But OK, let's play your game. Do you think promoting an organization that lies to achieve it's ends is OK? Do you love guns so much that it doesn't matter? Do you think fighting a boogie man is a good strategy for a national organization, even though no evidence supports the existence of that boogie man? I am not saying you take any or all of these positions, I am asking, so don't go into your song and dance about insulting you.

Staleek -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/24/2015 10:50:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, what do you suppose is clouding your judgment and reading comprehension, then? I've already answered your questions. You're picking a sub-group and claiming it's representative. Hence, you're assuming all sorts of erroneous straw men. [My Bold] Ahhh... As I said already I never claimed it was representative. In fact I already stated that millions of guns are in circulation out there and the vast majority are never used in violent crimes. I apologise if this wasn't clear but that much seemed obvious to me. I said that it would solve some of the problems associated with gun violence if there were comprehensive background checks and less marketing towards this demographic. Let me explain this in a more mathematical framework. 1. Guns are, to some extent, marketed as a product that is associated with archetypical male "tough guy" connotations. Is that correct or incorrect? The degree to which this occurs isn't relevant. 2. If one is concerned about the preservation of human life vis-à-vis gun violence (and I confess I couldn't really give a toss about the preservation of human life) we have a vested interest in keep guns out of the hands of those who see them not as a tool or a hobby but as a status symbol of their power. This is my point. I don't see a straw man there, and I don't even know what I'm supposedly straw manning as I've already stated I'm not in favour of gun control. That's all. I don't see any bad logic there to be honest, and this has even been brought up by the NRA... "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun". That's all.

Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/24/2015 10:57:04 AM)
I don't think it's as simple as that. Link to this marketing. I doubt it's representative. It doesn't have to be -- you're not convincing people to buy guns who don't already. The tactic more commonly is to scare them -- the world is dangerous and you're unsafe, or the new administration is going to ban sales of these weapons or this ammunition etc. And it works every time -- the event prophesied never happens, but gun sales soar. I think what you're talking about is more fairly several decades of war and western movies and television. Yes, there are fringe groups all about militias and survivalist in the doomsday sense, and they publish magazines that pander to these folks. But far more about about sportsmen, hunters, gun enthusiasts, and the like.

cloudboy -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/24/2015 11:31:01 AM)
I think that there's a certain irony to being "macho" and guns, because the guy who brings a firearm to a fistfight or to challenge a lost Alzheimer's man wandering on his property is a form coward or paranoid personality.

bounty44 -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/24/2015 11:39:29 AM)
aa quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 for the liberals who keep using the expression "kool aid drinkers" the contemporary expression came into existence from the cult suicides in Guyana in the late 70s. the implication is that kool aid drinkers are mindless followers who haven't examined facts, and that to their own harm so when people actually have examined an issue, and provide evidence of having done so, and engage in thoughtful refutations of the counterarguments they are being presented with---they are not kool aid drinkers. they are merely people with whom you disagree but you cannot find it within yourself to treat them respectfully because you so hate the positions they hold, or you do not have the wherewithal to deal with their points and have to resort to insults. No. That's not it. When those "fact followers" simply ignore or dismiss inconvenient data rather than constructing arguments (or starting them with a circumstantial ad homenim fallacy about liberals moving to other countries), they aren't standing on any logical footing (nor any moral ground from which to preach about "resorting to insults" when that's your opening bid). Irony isn't something Tony Stark does. am not sure to which "ad hominem fallacy" you refer? if its my jibe about liberals moving to another country, ive got plenty of good and well examined reasons for it---has nothing to do with you personally, your personality, your attributes, or whatever---it's not an "attack on the man", it only has to do with that I've reasoned liberals are the enemy of the country. its really tough to follow because there are so many back and forths going on but from the little ive read, it seems to me that people aren't merely "dismissing data" but are rather considering and are skeptical of the source? id have to go back and read more carefully...

lovmuffin -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/24/2015 11:44:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Slow down, keyboard cowboy. Have a read . . . was trying to partly bail-out your ass, and said much the same thing (except about the marketing). You need to bail your own ass out. Though she partially dug her ass out on post #605 you keep on digging down.

Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/24/2015 11:47:32 AM)
Which only points out that you don't know what "circumstantial ad homemin" means. Time for Google!

Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/24/2015 11:52:20 AM)
Well, since what I said after that is quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I don't think it's as simple as that. Link to this marketing. I doubt it's representative. It doesn't have to be -- you're not convincing people to buy guns who don't already. The tactic more commonly is to scare them -- the world is dangerous and you're unsafe, or the new administration is going to ban sales of these weapons or this ammunition etc. And it works every time -- the event prophesied never happens, but gun sales soar. I think what you're talking about is more fairly several decades of war and western movies and television. Yes, there are fringe groups all about militias and survivalist in the doomsday sense, and they publish magazines that pander to these folks. But far more about about sportsmen, hunters, gun enthusiasts, and the like. ...what's your beef? It would appear, by your objection (though you didn't trouble yourself with any specifics, just the snark), that you feel she's right, that the marketing is about machoism. And/or that you disagree, that gun owners and publications by and large are NOT the hunters and sportsmen and enthusiasts, but the macho reactionary paramilitary and shoot-em-out survivalists. Is that your position? If it is, I'm surprised, and if it is, I'll have to apologize to her, because if so, then she nailed you accurately. So which is it?

lovmuffin -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/24/2015 12:01:38 PM)
quote: Musicmystery In fact, the NRA quite explicitly plays to this paranoia -- if you go to join, here's the top of page: quote: Dear Fellow American: What's happening RIGHT NOW in Washington, D.C. could spell disaster for YOUR guns and YOUR Second Amendment rights! Hundreds of gun-ban politicians, political appointees and bureaucrats are now writing regulations, casting votes and passing laws that could all but eliminate your right to own a gun. Their agenda starts with licensing, registering, fingerprinting, inspecting and cataloging every firearm, firearm owner and firearm transfer in the United States ... ... And it ends with an outright ban on your guns!!!! Only you can stop the anti-gunners and prevent the obliteration of our Second Amendment rights... by joining NRA today. Ya think ya just get that stuff in membership advertising ? Join up and you'll keep getting the same type of stuff in letters that come every 2 - 3 weeks asking for donations. If they changed "passing laws" to trying to pass laws in the letter you cited it wouldn't even have been exaggerated. IMO, if it wasn't for the NRA we would have virtually been reduced to muzzle loaders by now. Ok........so I may have slightly exaggerated that last sentence[8D]

bounty44 -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/24/2015 12:01:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Which only points out that you don't know what "circumstantial ad homemin" means. Time for Google! I know quite well what the phrase means. if you are meaning the people who are disagreeing with you based on the motivations of the people who did the study, I don't totally disagree. but like I said, id have to read lots more carefully.

lovmuffin -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/24/2015 12:04:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Which only points out that you don't know what "circumstantial ad homemin" means. Time for Google! Oh good, another tangent to a tangent[8D] Keep on shoveling.

Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/24/2015 12:05:28 PM)
Well no then, you don't. Because you continually repeat the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. I suspect you see "ad hominem" and say "well of course I know what that is" and completely miss the "circumstantial" part of the phrase. Unless you're just choosing to look clueless. I don't know.

Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/24/2015 12:06:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Which only points out that you don't know what "circumstantial ad homemin" means. Time for Google! Oh good, another tangent to a tangent[8D] Keep on shoveling. It's her only stock in trade. With a sweep of her hand, anything she doesn't think is "liberal" and if you get rid of the liberals, it's all settled. Her tangent. Her shovel. I'm just not going to dig with it for her. Or you.

lovmuffin -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/24/2015 12:07:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Which only points out that you don't know what "circumstantial ad homemin" means. Time for Google! I know quite well what the phrase means. if you are meaning the people who are disagreeing with you based on the motivations of the people who did the study, I don't totally disagree. but like I said, id have to read lots more carefully. Whach out, next thing yer gun-a get a lesson on how to use quotations [8D]

Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/24/2015 12:08:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: Musicmystery In fact, the NRA quite explicitly plays to this paranoia -- if you go to join, here's the top of page: quote: Dear Fellow American: What's happening RIGHT NOW in Washington, D.C. could spell disaster for YOUR guns and YOUR Second Amendment rights! Hundreds of gun-ban politicians, political appointees and bureaucrats are now writing regulations, casting votes and passing laws that could all but eliminate your right to own a gun. Their agenda starts with licensing, registering, fingerprinting, inspecting and cataloging every firearm, firearm owner and firearm transfer in the United States ... ... And it ends with an outright ban on your guns!!!! Only you can stop the anti-gunners and prevent the obliteration of our Second Amendment rights... by joining NRA today. Ya think ya just get that stuff in membership advertising ? Join up and you'll keep getting the same type of stuff in letters that come every 2 - 3 weeks asking for donations. If they changed "passing laws" to trying to pass laws in the letter you cited it wouldn't even have been exaggerated. IMO, if it wasn't for the NRA we would have virtually been reduced to muzzle loaders by now. Ok........so I may have slightly exaggerated that last sentence[8D] And that's my point. The continual hyperbole presents an image of paranoiac hysteria. And that's hard to take seriously. Or those who double down on supporting/defending the mania.

lovmuffin -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/24/2015 12:13:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Which only points out that you don't know what "circumstantial ad homemin" means. Time for Google! Oh good, another tangent to a tangent[8D] Keep on shoveling. It's her only stock in trade. With a sweep of her hand, anything she doesn't think is "liberal" and if you get rid of the liberals, it's all settled. Her tangent. Her shovel. I'm just not going to dig with it for her. Or you. What [8\|]

bounty44 -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/24/2015 12:13:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well no then, you don't. Because you continually repeat the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. I suspect you see "ad hominem" and say "well of course I know what that is" and completely miss the "circumstantial" part of the phrase. Unless you're just choosing to look clueless. I don't know. you do know it's possible right that a study done by the dairy industry finding that milk is good for you, should be rightly scrutinized, treated with a fair deal of skepticism and in light of contrary evidence, maybe even treated with some suspicion? or does that fall under your catch all circumstantial fallacy rubric too?

Page: << < prev 29 30 [31] 32 33 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875