[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
No such thing. You are either for civilian disarmament or you are against it. By voting for Democrats, you vote for a disarmed citizenry.
[/quote]
That kind of black and white thinking is why people think gun nuts are… well, nuts. There’s lots of middle ground.
[/quote]
The problem is when the people you vote for don’t think there is a middle ground, it doesn’t matter what you think.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
No such thing. You are either for civilian disarmament or you are against it. By voting for Democrats, you vote for a disarmed citizenry.
[/quote]
That kind of black and white thinking is why people think gun nuts are… well, nuts. There’s lots of middle ground.
[/quote]
I am far from a gun nut. There are no pro-second amendment Democrats. All the representatives will inevitably vote the party line, which is to disarm the citzenry.[quote]
Total, utter, and complete strawman. Argue this with someone else.
[/quote]
I don’t think you understand what a “strawman” is. And the anology is perfect. You are requiring extensive background checking for citizens exercising a Constitutional right because of 30 to 40 murders per year. Voting is a Constitutional right, and a non-intrusive background check to curb the rampant fraud that is occurring is a reasonable measure.
[quote][quote]
You had best ban left hands, given it takes me about 1.5 seconds to put another 7 round magazine in my 1911 .45.[/quote]
See above. Stress, adrenaline, OODA loops, etc. can have a pretty severe affect on the reflexes of those in combat, forget civilians who don’t have proper training. [/quote]
Having been in combat – and assuming you, as a liberal are a physical coward like most liberals – I have no idea what you are talking about.
Could someone fumble a tad with an extra magazine? Maybe. That kid in CN sure changed mags fast. As did the jihadi in Ft. Hood.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
No such thing. You are either for civilian disarmament or you are against it. By voting for Democrats, you vote for a disarmed citizenry.
[/quote]
That kind of black and white thinking is why people think gun nuts are… well, nuts. There’s lots of middle ground.
Total, utter, and complete strawman. Argue this with someone else.
[quote]
You had best ban left hands, given it takes me about 1.5 seconds to put another 7 round magazine in my 1911 .45.[/quote]
See below. Stress, adrenaline, OODA loops, etc. can have a pretty severe affect on the reflexes of those in combat, forget civilians who don’t have proper training. [/quote]
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
No such thing. You are either for civilian disarmament or you are against it. By voting for Democrats, you vote for a disarmed citizenry.
[/quote]
That kind of black and white thinking is why people think gun nuts are… well, nuts. There’s lots of middle ground.
[/quote]
The problem is when the people you vote for don’t think there is a middle ground, it doesn’t matter what you think.[/quote]
Well, nobody is coming to seize your guns. Which means that there is a middle ground, and that is where this debate will settle eventually. [/quote]
What does seizing have to do with anything? It’s not about my guns, its about the next generations guns which do not yet have any guns to seize, since they are under 18 or unborn.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I missed that part - Jay said that?
I wouldn’t have bugged you with that except that you posted it twice… and as I said - a whack job like me just couldn’t pass up the perceived opportunity[/quote]
I don’t blame you for missing it because he never really said it. It sort of came out over a number of implications and pointed questions asked by him. He began averring that “he could pull it off with a handful of actors,” etc.
Anyway, my intention was to criticize what I could best determine to be his position.[/quote]
Aw, dammit
That’s exactly what I thought had happened
Then what I said was spot on
As I recall - he specifically said that he is still thinking it through
You then act like questions and even thinking itself (or lack thereof - if you insist) is some sort of carnal sin or something.
He said he does not yet have a position, and he is exploring possibilities
The word for this is ‘strawman’. Happens all the time on a wide range of topics and is a natural attack pattern. It is ALSO a logical fallacy. It just amazes me how “everybody” considers it to be logical and wholesome and good when the topic is conspiracies. Strawman is strawman regardless of the topic
Again I explain my issue. You and anyone else can either accept, consider, or ignore. But utilizing strawman to blur the lines is a different thing entirely - which I find to be highly interesting
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
assuming you, as a liberal are a physical coward like most liberals
[/quote]
Conversation is over. It’s been a pleasure corresponding with such an internet tough guy. Reason #4,454,421 I don’t come to the politics forum anymore.
Adieu. [/quote]
Your high horse, you can get off it, when you called this place the “GOP blow job barn” in the first place.
Your moral high ground is moot, and you look foolish right now, fyi.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
No such thing. You are either for civilian disarmament or you are against it. By voting for Democrats, you vote for a disarmed citizenry.
[/quote]
That kind of black and white thinking is why people think gun nuts are… well, nuts. There’s lots of middle ground.
[/quote]
The problem is when the people you vote for don’t think there is a middle ground, it doesn’t matter what you think.[/quote]
Well, nobody is coming to seize your guns. Which means that there is a middle ground, and that is where this debate will settle eventually. [/quote]
What does seizing have to do with anything? It’s not about my guns, its about the next generations guns which do not yet have any guns to seize, since they are under 18 or unborn.[/quote]
The purpose of a gun registry is to create a list to use to seize weapons.
They just did this in several other Western countries — start off with “just a registry” then move to seizure as next step.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Also, it appeared to me that you haven’t seriously looked into it and that your entire post was a speculation-criticism designed to say that it wasn’t worth looking into
Did I misunderstand? Set me straight please[/quote]
If you can find something wrong with the substance of my criticism, show me and I will respond.[/quote]
I did. I pointed out that your criticism had no real substance
You said that a conspiracy would necessarily entail: and then you made a ridiculous listing
I said that your listing was ridiculous and that a conspiracy need not be as on its face ridiculous as you were positing. I then conjured up my own alternate theory (zero evidence of course, BUT) without any of the so called ‘required’ ingredients that you had listed. It was extremely easy… I just couldn’t let it slide, being the whack job that I am
People have a strange tendency to cram conspiracy theories into a weird little box that they can easily set aside. The setting aside doesn’t bother me none, but the weird little boxes do[/quote]
No you didn’t. You babbled something about brainwashing. This is real life, not a Brosnan-era Bond movie.[/quote]
…eh?
Real life?
In this dialog?
Where?
Damn. I guess I was confused about you. You just may be crazier than me, maybe
Now I just said last time that your criticism had no substance. Show me the substance in your criticism and I will see what I can do
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Also, it appeared to me that you haven’t seriously looked into it and that your entire post was a speculation-criticism designed to say that it wasn’t worth looking into
Did I misunderstand? Set me straight please[/quote]
If you can find something wrong with the substance of my criticism, show me and I will respond.[/quote]
All I did was match up your extremely narrow, baseless conspiracy theory against my own extremely broad, baseless conspiracy theory. All I said was that your extremely narrow perspective on it was not the cookie cutter from which all conspiracy theories flow. Other (equally baseless) conspiracy theories can possibly be constructed which do not utilize the exact same ingredients that you said were required. You can’t really disprove all conspiracy theories in a single post
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Let’s look at what a conspiracy would entail:
The children listed as killed–they had to be real kids. You can’t make up the names of children and then pretend that they’ve been living in a community and attending public school. You can’t bandy the names of fake children and their fake parents about the national airwaves without people in the community stopping and asking, “Wait, has anyone ever heard of these people before?”
So, what happened to the kids then? They’re going to be hidden forever? Going to have to assume new names and new identities? And, since the parents of the children can’t all get up and move away from the town at once, who’s going to be taking care of these children? Surely they aren’t going to be hidden in the basements of their old houses for decades?
What about all of the first responders. All paid off? Or were they tricked with fake blood and fake corpses? If the former: when were they notified of this? How were they notified? Would the planners and executors of one of the most daring cover-ups in American history call a bunch of local cops and EMT’s into a room and say, “hey guys, we’re going to be faking like two dozen deaths here in a month or two. Need you on board. Cool?”
What about the hundreds of neighbors and distant relatives interviewed in the aftermath? Were they in on it, or are they being duped like the rest of us? How is little Jane Doe going to be hidden from Uncle Bob for the rest of her life?
And most importantly: with this army of actors and fakers and bribe-takers, are we to believe that there isn’t a single one among them tempted by the notoriety that he or she would win by blowing the whistle? Not one who got drunk at a holiday party and found it impossible not to let on about an earth-shattering secret of national consequence?
Contending with the above we have the tinfoil-hat crowd–the guy who solved “Lost,” that is–and his bulletproof evidence: a little girl who shares clothing with her sister and a hysterical interviewee who laughed in a moment of grief.
[/quote]
In case someone who is entertaining this “idea” wants to respond.[/quote]
This is the part that started it all between us
There are problems that I see with this post, which I can point out very easily and dispassionately since I have not been following this supposed conspiracy
The major flaw - I point out again, is right here in the opening line
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Let’s look at what a conspiracy would entail: [/quote] Again - you cannot disprove all conspiracy theories in a single post. You can consider/ignore them on a case by case basis as they come, accept all, ignore all, consider all… I am not sure if I have expended all possibilities
The most interesting thing about this post is that I cannot tell if you are ignoring the “idea” or actually considering it. Actually I am pretty sure that you are only considering it enough to where you and/or others might be satisfied with ignoring it. That’s all fine. But what is being considered and what is being ignored? Do they match piece by piece?
No
In other words, your analysis itself is flawed
I see a lot of times people will analyze A B and C.
And then conclude that D and E are obviously false[/quote]
“I think the government faked Sandy Hook. I think all the parents were paid actors and no children died.”
This is what gave birth to my list of questions. Those questions are entirely apropos in that they illuminate the unfailing ability of the nutjob to disregard the improbability of his pet canard.[/quote]
Woah, woah, woah
[b]Hold on a second[/b]
…What’s with the fake quotes?
Damn man.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
assuming you, as a liberal are a physical coward like most liberals
[/quote]
Conversation is over. It’s been a pleasure corresponding with such an internet tough guy. Reason #4,454,421 I don’t come to the politics forum anymore.
Adieu. [/quote]
I’d run away, too, if I was exposed as you have been.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
See you later.[/quote]
Good riddence.
Lol @ you being vulgar and making insulting generalizations, and the acting like a butthurt schoolboy when someone does it and includes you.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Oh no! I look foolish in the POLITICS FORUM!!?
[/quote]
You seem like a straight shooter, so I am sure you act like you do here, in real life too.
Which leads one to believe you look follish there as well.
Once again, we are forgetting the real reason for the 2A.
It is not about sporting. It is not about hunting. It’s not even about personal and family defense. It was put in the Bill of Rights because an armed citizenry (militia) is necessary to a free state. Without military weapons in the hands of We the People, we will fall into a dictatorship. And the world will fall with us.
[quote]You yanks! You are so strong! The whole world is watching all of you, and rooting for you… because if you fall, the rest of us are done.
~Trevor Louden~[/quote]
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
“I think the government faked Sandy Hook. I think all the parents were paid actors and no children died.”
This is what gave birth to my list of questions. Those questions are entirely apropos in that they illuminate the unfailing ability of the nutjob to disregard the improbability of his pet canard.[/quote]
Woah, woah, woah
[b]Hold on a second[/b]
…What’s with the fake quotes?
Damn man.[/quote]
You’re right about that. Not a quotation. Didn’t even occur to me.
Anyway, that’s the contention I was arguing against.
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I missed that part - Jay said that?
I wouldn’t have bugged you with that except that you posted it twice… and as I said - a whack job like me just couldn’t pass up the perceived opportunity[/quote]
I don’t blame you for missing it because he never really said it. It sort of came out over a number of implications and pointed questions asked by him. He began averring that “he could pull it off with a handful of actors,” etc.
Anyway, my intention was to criticize what I could best determine to be his position.[/quote]
Aw, dammit
That’s exactly what I thought had happened
Then what I said was spot on
As I recall - he specifically said that he is still thinking it through
You then act like questions and even thinking itself (or lack thereof - if you insist) is some sort of carnal sin or something.
He said he does not yet have a position, and he is exploring possibilities
The word for this is ‘strawman’. Happens all the time on a wide range of topics and is a natural attack pattern. It is ALSO a logical fallacy. It just amazes me how “everybody” considers it to be logical and wholesome and good when the topic is conspiracies. Strawman is strawman regardless of the topic
Again I explain my issue. You and anyone else can either accept, consider, or ignore. But utilizing strawman to blur the lines is a different thing entirely - which I find to be highly interesting[/quote]
Again, and for the last time–that is not a straw man. That’s the position the he said he was considering. Therefore the criticism is entirely appropriate. Or do you disagree specifically?
I will make it simple: the conspiracy theory in question has going against it those unanswered questions.
Person 1: Maybe the kids weren’t actually killed.
Person 2: Where are they then? Where are they going to be for the rest of their lives? Are their extended families aware of their participation in this ruse? Etc.
Perfectly natural and legitimate line of inquiry.
Edit: or do you somehow think that those questions are not appropriate in response to that particular “idea.”
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
and assuming you, as a liberal are a physical coward like most liberals
[/quote]
Wanna take this outside?
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
No such thing. You are either for civilian disarmament or you are against it. By voting for Democrats, you vote for a disarmed citizenry.
[/quote]
That kind of black and white thinking is why people think gun nuts are… well, nuts. There’s lots of middle ground.
[/quote]
The problem is when the people you vote for don’t think there is a middle ground, it doesn’t matter what you think.[/quote]
Well, nobody is coming to seize your guns. Which means that there is a middle ground, and that is where this debate will settle eventually. [/quote]
What does seizing have to do with anything? It’s not about my guns, its about the next generations guns which do not yet have any guns to seize, since they are under 18 or unborn.[/quote]
The purpose of a gun registry is to create a list to use to seize weapons.
They just did this in several other Western countries — start off with “just a registry” then move to seizure as next step.[/quote]
My point was even if we could guarantee there would be no seizures in the future the other arguments would still be valid, making the seizure part irrelevant.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I missed that part - Jay said that?
I wouldn’t have bugged you with that except that you posted it twice… and as I said - a whack job like me just couldn’t pass up the perceived opportunity[/quote]
I don’t blame you for missing it because he never really said it. It sort of came out over a number of implications and pointed questions asked by him. He began averring that “he could pull it off with a handful of actors,” etc.
Anyway, my intention was to criticize what I could best determine to be his position.[/quote]
Aw, dammit
That’s exactly what I thought had happened
Then what I said was spot on
As I recall - he specifically said that he is still thinking it through
You then act like questions and even thinking itself (or lack thereof - if you insist) is some sort of carnal sin or something.
He said he does not yet have a position, and he is exploring possibilities
The word for this is ‘strawman’. Happens all the time on a wide range of topics and is a natural attack pattern. It is ALSO a logical fallacy. It just amazes me how “everybody” considers it to be logical and wholesome and good when the topic is conspiracies. Strawman is strawman regardless of the topic
Again I explain my issue. You and anyone else can either accept, consider, or ignore. But utilizing strawman to blur the lines is a different thing entirely - which I find to be highly interesting[/quote]
Again, and for the last time–that is not a straw man. That’s the position the he said he was considering. Therefore the criticism is entirely appropriate. Or do you disagree specifically?
I will make it simple: the conspiracy theory in question has going against it those unanswered questions.
Person 1: Maybe the kids weren’t actually killed.
Person 2: Where are they then? Where are they going to be for the rest of their lives? Are their extended families aware of their participation in this ruse? Etc.
Perfectly natural and legitimate line of inquiry.
Edit: or do you somehow think that those questions are not appropriate in response to that particular “idea.”[/quote]
That would have been a Perfectly natural and legitimate line of inquiry.
You however posted something else. Twice. You did literally put words into his mouth and you did literally create a strawman. You literally created an argument which he did not (or if he did then I missed it)
When you did it twice I noticed what I did and still do perceive to be a major mental slip on your part. A common and widely accepted one at that
Seems you are only interested in discussing what lies directly within your strawman. I will leave you alone then
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I missed that part - Jay said that?
I wouldn’t have bugged you with that except that you posted it twice… and as I said - a whack job like me just couldn’t pass up the perceived opportunity[/quote]
I don’t blame you for missing it because he never really said it. It sort of came out over a number of implications and pointed questions asked by him. He began averring that “he could pull it off with a handful of actors,” etc.
Anyway, my intention was to criticize what I could best determine to be his position.[/quote]
Aw, dammit
That’s exactly what I thought had happened
Then what I said was spot on
As I recall - he specifically said that he is still thinking it through
You then act like questions and even thinking itself (or lack thereof - if you insist) is some sort of carnal sin or something.
He said he does not yet have a position, and he is exploring possibilities
The word for this is ‘strawman’. Happens all the time on a wide range of topics and is a natural attack pattern. It is ALSO a logical fallacy. It just amazes me how “everybody” considers it to be logical and wholesome and good when the topic is conspiracies. Strawman is strawman regardless of the topic
Again I explain my issue. You and anyone else can either accept, consider, or ignore. But utilizing strawman to blur the lines is a different thing entirely - which I find to be highly interesting[/quote]
Again, and for the last time–that is not a straw man. That’s the position the he said he was considering. Therefore the criticism is entirely appropriate. Or do you disagree specifically?
I will make it simple: the conspiracy theory in question has going against it those unanswered questions.
Person 1: Maybe the kids weren’t actually killed.
Person 2: Where are they then? Where are they going to be for the rest of their lives? Are their extended families aware of their participation in this ruse? Etc.
Perfectly natural and legitimate line of inquiry.
Edit: or do you somehow think that those questions are not appropriate in response to that particular “idea.”[/quote]
That would have been a Perfectly natural and legitimate line of inquiry.
You however posted something else. Twice. You did literally put words into his mouth and you did literally create a strawman. You literally created an argument which he did not (or if he did then I missed it)
[/quote]
Then you missed it. Your mistake.
Go back, read through the posts, and tell me exactly what contention I was arguing against. It won’t be an easy task because some kind of visceral shame (or if we’re being generous, reluctance) often precludes the conspiracy theorist from exposing himself as such outright–instead he deals in whispers and questions and implications. A halfway intelligent observer can surmise the conspiracy theorist’s actual contention from there.
If you’re interested in doing so, go back and surmise. You will come to something like: “I think Sandy Hook might have been an enormous hoax. I think that in reality no children died. I think a bunch of paid actors and/or bribe-takers were involved.”
The criticism I presented–in the form of a set of questions–is uncontroversially apropos of this set of hypotheses. In fact, those particular questions are so naturally related to that particular set of hypotheses as to render them basically inevitable.
So go back and figure things out for yourself. Or don’t. Either way, I’m not going to argue with someone who is openly and unabashedly ignorant of the specifics of the argument.
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
You literally created an argument which he did not (or if he did then I missed it)
[/quote]
You are either wrong or playing dumb. JP obviously would have called me on it if I had been attacking a position he never intended to advocate (or discuss, at least). Instead, he said that my questions were unanswerable (which, if you’re still being obtuse, does not mean that they are inappropriate).
Again–figure things out for yourself. If you’d like to present a theory on what exactly JP meant to aver, do so by all means. Otherwise…
