Japan - 15 killed in knife attack
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-07-2016, 11:52 AM
RE: Japan - 15 killed in knife attack
(26-07-2016 11:51 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 11:49 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Good job he didn't have a gun otherwise the death toll would have been far greater (fact)

He'd have gotten more with a truck......

(PROVEN fact)

And this still doesn't mean that we shouldn't have better gun regulations and restrictions. FACT

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 11:52 AM
RE: Japan - 15 killed in knife attack
Updated death toll: 19

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 12:01 PM
RE: Japan - 15 killed in knife attack
(26-07-2016 11:20 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 11:13 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  If you don't like my criticism or think it out of place don't respond to it.

Suggesting that I'm out of line for criticizing the hijacking of yet another thread , while holding that you are perfectly in line for hijacking it makes you look like a dick, not holier-than-art-thou dick, just plane dick.

Said the hypocrite hijacking the thread.

"If you don't like my criticism or think it out of place don't respond to it."

I don't mind conversations evolving within threads, I'm just pointing out the error in your criticism and the way you're projecting yourself as some sort of arbiter of thread topics (which necessarily places you in a hypocritical position since you are not discussing the OP or engaging in the conversation that emanated from it, but are instead trying to start a conversation about a conversation within a thread).

"Suggesting that I'm out of line for criticizing the hijacking of yet another thread , while holding that you are perfectly in line for hijacking it makes you look like a dick, not holier-than-art-thou dick, just plane dick."

I was simply pointing out your arrogant approach to criticizing a conversation you didn't want to be involved in (but apparently want to converse about the conversation). If that makes me a plain-ol dick, then whatever, dick.

My criticism of the conversation is getting involved in it. You are just complaining because my involvement in the conversation is not in line with the direction of the conversation that you want it to be.


I am not projecting myself as an arbiter of threads. I am just trying to change the direction of it , from the gun debate to a debate about the gun debaters.
Perfectly legitimate thread direction.

And since you don't have a problem with conversations evolving within threads I am not sure what you are complaining about.
Unless you think that you are the one that should decide what can thread conversation evolve into and what is off limits.

You also seem to think that you are above criticism? I mean, I could've started a different thread criticizing gun debaters, but since you feel entitled to steer the existing conversations in the directions that you prefer I don't see why I shouldn't do the same.

You see, my efforts are yielding some results, from the gun debate now we are debating who is a bigger dick, dick.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 12:03 PM
RE: Japan - 15 killed in knife attack
(26-07-2016 11:52 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 11:51 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  He'd have gotten more with a truck......

(PROVEN fact)

And this still doesn't mean that we shouldn't have better gun regulations and restrictions. FACT

I often wonder, what further regulations and restrictions could prevent a terrorist attack?

I look at the Charlie Hebdo attack, the Paris concert, how did they kill so many people with such strict gun control? Fully automatic rifles in a country with some of the strictist gun control in the world.

The answer is, gun control won't stop terrorists. And it won't stop most criminals. Background checks won't stop a domestic violence abuser with no previous record from buying a gun. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they're not.

Every gun thread reaches this inevitable point.

"Gun control, regulations etc. won't actually work. We need an Australian style ban."

And that brings on the next step of the debate. Will Americans support an Australian style ban or will they revolt?

Now we discuss the merits of a revolution against the government, and whose side the military will take.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 12:05 PM
RE: Japan - 15 killed in knife attack
(26-07-2016 11:52 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 11:51 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  He'd have gotten more with a truck......

(PROVEN fact)

And this still doesn't mean that we shouldn't have better gun regulations and restrictions. FACT

There's never been a rule, law or regulation that kept anyone from being a murdering asshole.

And there never will be.

....

Pass laws, restrict guns -- you won't make a bit of difference....

You'll just make yourself feel morally superior to everyone who doesn't agree with you...

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 12:06 PM
RE: Japan - 15 killed in knife attack
(26-07-2016 11:24 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 10:47 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  There is nothing in the OP that suggest that this was his intention, and even if it was , just replace the " another thread " with "another world event" in my post and it still is the same.
The fact that there is always so many people ready to take the bait and jump on it is the problem.
If we had the president of the NRA and the Michael fakn Moore here they would be sick and tired from all the debating on the subject by now.

And it's not like any new arguments are being brought to the table, it's the same people repeating themselves over and over and over again.

If you're at all familiar with Lord Dark Helmet, though, you had to know where the thread was headed. He posts almost exclusively about guns.

Anyway, I find the topic (and its relation to the gun debate) quite interesting. A mass killing carried out with a knife is a new data point that needs to be acknowledged and dealt with by both sides of the debate.

Fair enough.

No worries, now I have Thebeardeddude to fight with , carry on Cool

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 12:11 PM
RE: Japan - 15 killed in knife attack
(26-07-2016 12:01 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 11:20 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Said the hypocrite hijacking the thread.

"If you don't like my criticism or think it out of place don't respond to it."

I don't mind conversations evolving within threads, I'm just pointing out the error in your criticism and the way you're projecting yourself as some sort of arbiter of thread topics (which necessarily places you in a hypocritical position since you are not discussing the OP or engaging in the conversation that emanated from it, but are instead trying to start a conversation about a conversation within a thread).

"Suggesting that I'm out of line for criticizing the hijacking of yet another thread , while holding that you are perfectly in line for hijacking it makes you look like a dick, not holier-than-art-thou dick, just plane dick."

I was simply pointing out your arrogant approach to criticizing a conversation you didn't want to be involved in (but apparently want to converse about the conversation). If that makes me a plain-ol dick, then whatever, dick.

My criticism of the conversation is getting involved in it. You are just complaining because my involvement in the conversation is not in line with the direction of the conversation that you want it to be.


I am not projecting myself as an arbiter of threads. I am just trying to change the direction of it , from the gun debate to a debate about the gun debaters.
Perfectly legitimate thread direction.

And since you don't have a problem with conversations evolving within threads I am not sure what you are complaining about.
Unless you think that you are the one that should decide what can thread conversation evolve into and what is off limits.

You also seem to think that you are above criticism? I mean, I could've started a different thread criticizing gun debaters, but since you feel entitled to steer the existing conversations in the directions that you prefer I don't see why I shouldn't do the same.

You see, my efforts are yielding some results, from the gun debate now we are debating who is a bigger dick, dick.

"You are just complaining because my involvement in the conversation is not in line with the direction of the conversation that you want it to be. "

No, I think you're conflating YOUR reason for complaining with me critiquing your critique.

"I am not projecting myself as an arbiter of threads. I am just trying to change the direction of it , from the gun debate to a debate about the gun debaters.
Perfectly legitimate thread direction. "


That is contradicted by this: "Fakn shit, another thread turned into a gun debate.

You are all idiots , every single one of you that uses every opportunity to blow his horn about gun control , whether you are pro or anti gun control , you know that , right?

All we need now is that spastic to show up with his tourrettes to make this a well rounded package of Muricans turning something completely unrelated into their fakn life or death debate over guns."


Complain about the thread topic not being the OP because someone turned it into a conversation you don't approve of, and now you are saying that this was actually YOUR goal.

Or to put it another way:
OP: stabbing deaths
Conversation: gun control
You: "Great, another thread not about guns turned into a thread on gun control. Here, let me turn it into another entirely different topic. That topic is now conversations about gun control."

"And since you don't have a problem with conversations evolving within threads I am not sure what you are complaining about. "

Who said I was complaining? You did. I am pointing out the contradictions in YOUR complaints.

"Unless you think that you are the one that should decide what can thread conversation evolve into and what is off li"

I'm saying you're being hypocritical.

"You also seem to think that you are above criticism?"

Nope, have at it. I don't give a shit if you've criticism, but it should be valid instead of just you trying to deflect criticism.

"I mean, I could've started a different thread criticizing gun debaters..."

Yes, you could have and it wouldn't have placed in you in a hypocritical position that made you look like a dick.

"...but since you feel entitled to steer the existing conversations in the directions that you prefer I don't see why I shouldn't do the same. "

I don't feel entitled to do it, I am pointing out YOUR entitlement to dictate where the conversation should go when you hypocritically criticize the conversation and then admit that you want to take it in yet another direction.

"You see, my efforts are yielding some results, from the gun debate now we are debating who is a bigger dick, dick."

You won the dick contest with your initial comment in the thread. If you don't want to be criticized, don't be a hypocrite, dick.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 12:21 PM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2016 12:30 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Japan - 15 killed in knife attack
(26-07-2016 12:03 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 11:52 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And this still doesn't mean that we shouldn't have better gun regulations and restrictions. FACT

I often wonder, what further regulations and restrictions could prevent a terrorist attack?

I look at the Charlie Hebdo attack, the Paris concert, how did they kill so many people with such strict gun control? Fully automatic rifles in a country with some of the strictist gun control in the world.

The answer is, gun control won't stop terrorists. And it won't stop most criminals. Background checks won't stop a domestic violence abuser with no previous record from buying a gun. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they're not.

Every gun thread reaches this inevitable point.

"Gun control, regulations etc. won't actually work. We need an Australian style ban."

And that brings on the next step of the debate. Will Americans support an Australian style ban or will they revolt?

Now we discuss the merits of a revolution against the government, and whose side the military will take.

"I often wonder, what further regulations and restrictions could prevent a terrorist attack? "

What further regulations and restrictions could prevent all terrorists attacks, or terrorist attacks (domestic or foreign) with guns? (which have high victim counts and are easy to access and use in the US?) It's only the latter question that those of us on the pro-regulation side are trying to engage in. No one is under the delusion that better gun laws and regulations will magically make terrorism or murder go away. That is a common straw man of the pro-regulation side of the conversation.

But if you want to actually know what could be done to help prevent mass shooting casualties (as well as something that will lower suicide rates, intentional homicide rates, and domestic disputes resulting in death of one or both of the spouses), there are literally dozens of first world countries to use as an example.

"I look at the Charlie Hebdo attack, the Paris concert, how did they kill so many people with such strict gun control? Fully automatic rifles in a country with some of the strictist gun control in the world. "

And there is the straw man. No one on the pro-regualtion side has ever claimed that better gun laws and regulations will remove 100% of the risk of terrorism. Ever. What the pro-regualtion side is saying is: "Look at all of these other countries that are actually safer overall with far fewer mass shootings. Why can't we at least try to do something to make if harder for us to fucking kill one another in the off chance we succeed?"

"The answer is, gun control won't stop terrorists."

Straw man. No one ever said it would.

"And it won't stop most criminals. "

Straw man. No one ever said it would.

"Background checks won't stop a domestic violence abuser with no previous record from buying a gun."

Straw man. No one ever said better regulations magically stop all murders or murders with guns.

"Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they're not. "

Everyone thinks they are a "good guy with a gun" until they're not.

"Every gun thread reaches this inevitable point. "

The pro-gun side making straw men to get out of actually engaging with the facts and substance? Yep, it is inevitable it seems.

"Gun control, regulations etc. won't actually work. We need an Australian style ban."

I didn't say that. We need better regulations and restrictions on PEOPLE.

"And that brings on the next step of the debate. Will Americans support an Australian style ban or will they revolt?"

Don't know, don't care. I didn't advocate for doing exactly what Australia did. You're straw manning me again.

"Now we discuss the merits of a revolution against the government, and whose side the military will take."

No, we don't discuss this because it is a bullshit slippery slope fallacy.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
26-07-2016, 01:06 PM
RE: Japan - 15 killed in knife attack
(26-07-2016 11:51 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 11:49 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Good job he didn't have a gun otherwise the death toll would have been far greater (fact)

He'd have gotten more with a truck......

(PROVEN fact)
Large numbers of people with guns = more gun related deaths (proven fact) OB I like you and don't wanna fall out with you but using the truck analogy is like the religious using presuppositional arguments for the existence of god. Everyone on here knows you are seriously pro gun but to pretend there are no problems with a universal ability to get firearms (and even with restrictions people can still obtain shotguns and super high powered airguns in the USA) is something that I fail to see how you can defend I am sold that currently in the USA you do need weapons for personal protection as long as you are legal but the number of them especially illegal ones is bonkers greater control is needed with no shadow of doubt Imo. Peace, Adey
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
26-07-2016, 02:30 PM
RE: Japan - 15 killed in knife attack
(26-07-2016 12:11 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 12:01 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  My criticism of the conversation is getting involved in it. You are just complaining because my involvement in the conversation is not in line with the direction of the conversation that you want it to be.


I am not projecting myself as an arbiter of threads. I am just trying to change the direction of it , from the gun debate to a debate about the gun debaters.
Perfectly legitimate thread direction.

And since you don't have a problem with conversations evolving within threads I am not sure what you are complaining about.
Unless you think that you are the one that should decide what can thread conversation evolve into and what is off limits.

You also seem to think that you are above criticism? I mean, I could've started a different thread criticizing gun debaters, but since you feel entitled to steer the existing conversations in the directions that you prefer I don't see why I shouldn't do the same.

You see, my efforts are yielding some results, from the gun debate now we are debating who is a bigger dick, dick.

"You are just complaining because my involvement in the conversation is not in line with the direction of the conversation that you want it to be. "

No, I think you're conflating YOUR reason for complaining with me critiquing your critique.

"I am not projecting myself as an arbiter of threads. I am just trying to change the direction of it , from the gun debate to a debate about the gun debaters.
Perfectly legitimate thread direction. "


That is contradicted by this: "Fakn shit, another thread turned into a gun debate.

You are all idiots , every single one of you that uses every opportunity to blow his horn about gun control , whether you are pro or anti gun control , you know that , right?

All we need now is that spastic to show up with his tourrettes to make this a well rounded package of Muricans turning something completely unrelated into their fakn life or death debate over guns."


Complain about the thread topic not being the OP because someone turned it into a conversation you don't approve of, and now you are saying that this was actually YOUR goal.

Or to put it another way:
OP: stabbing deaths
Conversation: gun control
You: "Great, another thread not about guns turned into a thread on gun control. Here, let me turn it into another entirely different topic. That topic is now conversations about gun control."

"And since you don't have a problem with conversations evolving within threads I am not sure what you are complaining about. "

Who said I was complaining? You did. I am pointing out the contradictions in YOUR complaints.

"Unless you think that you are the one that should decide what can thread conversation evolve into and what is off li"

I'm saying you're being hypocritical.

"You also seem to think that you are above criticism?"

Nope, have at it. I don't give a shit if you've criticism, but it should be valid instead of just you trying to deflect criticism.

"I mean, I could've started a different thread criticizing gun debaters..."

Yes, you could have and it wouldn't have placed in you in a hypocritical position that made you look like a dick.

"...but since you feel entitled to steer the existing conversations in the directions that you prefer I don't see why I shouldn't do the same. "

I don't feel entitled to do it, I am pointing out YOUR entitlement to dictate where the conversation should go when you hypocritically criticize the conversation and then admit that you want to take it in yet another direction.

"You see, my efforts are yielding some results, from the gun debate now we are debating who is a bigger dick, dick."

You won the dick contest with your initial comment in the thread. If you don't want to be criticized, don't be a hypocrite, dick.

Oh fuck, you've put some effort into this. Do I now have to match it?



No, I think you're conflating YOUR reason for complaining with me critiquing your critique.

"I am not projecting myself as an arbiter of threads. I am just trying to change the direction of it , from the gun debate to a debate about the gun debaters.
Perfectly legitimate thread direction. "

That is contradicted by this: "Fakn shit, another thread turned into a gun debate.

You are all idiots , every single one of you that uses every opportunity to blow his horn about gun control , whether you are pro or anti gun control , you know that , right?

All we need now is that spastic to show up with his tourrettes to make this a well rounded package of Muricans turning something completely unrelated into their fakn life or death debate over guns."

Complain about the thread topic not being the OP because someone turned it into a conversation you don't approve of, and now you are saying that this was actually YOUR goal.




My post was a comment/critique of the participants in the debate , not a complaint. For something to be considered a complaint it has to contain a demand or a request for change and my post doesn't. You can argue that implicitly it does, I'll give you that , but that was not the intended purpose or the main point.
To be honest I was hoping for a reaction on the content of my critique rather then the legitimacy of me making one, but I'll take what I can.

Or to put it another way:
OP: stabbing deaths
Conversation: gun control
You: "Great, another thread not about guns turned into a thread on gun control. Here, let me turn it into another entirely different topic. That topic is now conversations about gun control."


That's close, yes. It's more like "Look, they turned another thread into a gun debate, they need to be told they are idiots, and perhaps somebody would react to my post so I can tell them they are idiots for turning another thread into a gun debate in more detail"

Who said I was complaining? You did. I am pointing out the contradictions in YOUR complaints.

I'm saying you're being hypocritical.

You insist that I was making a complaint , when I was in fact making a comment/criticism. It is your position that criticism of the direction of the conversation is out of line that is hypocritical. I am perfectly within my rights to criticize the direction of the conversation and that criticism is a part of conversation also.
You don't get to decide in what way I'm gonna take part in the conversation.
I can take sides with one of the opposing camps, criticize the participants in the debate or criticize the debate itself. All legitimate ways of taking part in the conversation.

Nope, have at it. I don't give a shit if you've criticism, but it should be valid instead of just you trying to deflect criticism.

Again, it is you who is deflecting criticism by not addressing it but claiming that it shouldn't be made at all because it wasn't done in a matter you approve.


Yes, you could have and it wouldn't have placed in you in a hypocritical position that made you look like a dick.


If you had your debate in one of the gun control threads , there would be no need for me to point out that you are being a dick like you are. But since you don't care about having your gun debate in the designated threads that already exist , you "calling me out" on this makes you a hypocrite , not me.

I don't feel entitled to do it, I am pointing out YOUR entitlement to dictate where the conversation should go when you hypocritically criticize the conversation and then admit that you want to take it in yet another direction.

I didn't dictate anything, there is nothing hypocritical about me wanting to steer the conversation in different direction than it was going when the conversation has already moved from the original topic.

I think I see what you problem is.

You insist that my criticism is about the derailment of the thread and that disqualifies me from doing the same and it makes me a hypocrite for doing so but I just used the criticism as a tool for steering the conversation.

Reread my post again, I wasn't criticizing participants for derailing the thread , if I did that and then did the same thing myself that would make me a hypocrite.

I was criticizing the participants for turning a thread into yet another gun debate .
Emphasis of my critique is on a gun debate , not on the conversation evolving into something that it was not about before.
If the debate was derailed into a cheese debate I wouldn't make my comment.

"Fakn shit, another thread turned into a gun debate.

You are all idiots , every single one of you that uses every opportunity to blow his horn about gun control , whether you are pro or anti gun control , you know that , right?

All we need now is that spastic to show up with his tourrettes to make this a well rounded package of Muricans turning something completely unrelated into their fakn life or death debate over guns."


I think your reading comprehension failed you here, dick.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: