Prove there's a god.

Since: Feb 12

Germany

#582422 Jan 4, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't do nearly enough work to convince me that her intent was to dehumanize nano. Your paraphrasing of her words may seem like enough in your mind, but it says something different to me. You need to connect the dots. You also need to provide unaltered quotes or links if you want to be taken seriously.
Do you want to move the goalpost from "dehumanize" to "insult"?
I'm not necessarily defending KittenKoder. I made a conditional defense based on possible intent. I demonstrated how "it" is often used as a personal pronoun and I stated that other personal pronouns are also used to refer to non living things.
In actuality I don't need to do anything. You did not see the original post, or the reply so you are jumping to er defense with no substantiating evidence.
I am not going back and try to find her exact post. I know what she said, Nano knows what she said, if you agree or not is of little concern to me.
As I said try refering to someone as an IT and se the response you get.
As to moving goalposts I never set any goalposts so why would I want to move something?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#582423 Jan 4, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, a cat who can use the toilet is alot more tempting than one who cannot. But we travel alot, and it would not be fair to Waldorf to leave him alone or with sitters all the time. And he is still going to knock stuff over. That is a cats nature: to bat at whatever you treasure most. ;)
And shred your favorite chair.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#582424 Jan 4, 2013
"Bring them in before they freeze."

What am I talking about?

If I'm talking about children, isn't that dehumanizing? I could be talking about non living things here.

Since: Feb 12

Germany

#582425 Jan 4, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
He's afraid to say that he doesn't believe, because it might piss god off.
How about this, BITE ME PUNK!

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#582426 Jan 4, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
He's only threatening you if you're a "music lover".
Uh oh.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#582427 Jan 4, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you noticed that he's using almost diametrically opposed arguments in his weapon and abortion arguments?
A fetus is a person, but an assault weapon is only a POTENTIAL weapon.
I think he's just shooting himself in the foot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =am-Qdx6vky0XX
Hysterical YouTube.

Typically conservatives have wanted drug use and abortion criminalized, but gun ownership unregulated. So they use one set of arguments for the first two, and the exact opposite for the other. When they want the government to let them have their guns, they get all "Don't Tread On Me." But they want that same government to prevent gay marriage and abortion.

Or we hear that "People kill people, not guns," but "Crack kills" and to leave their guns alone, but escalate the War on Drugs. I believe that it was RiversideRednecks that thinks that the prisons are too cushy.

He was also the one that trotted out the principle that America need to go depose foreign dictators and bring democracy people suppressed by tyrants, but apparently only in Iraq.

This is why I refer to pseudoprinciples. An authentic principle applies in every case where it can, and prevails unless contradicted by a higher principle. Thus, telling the truth can be a principle in the sense that one always does it except when it would be unkind to do so, for example. The principle of kindness trumps honesty, as in the old chestnut that it is moral to lie to the Nazis at the door that you don't have fugitives hiding in your basement. But otherwise, one is always honest if one lives by honesty as a principle.

A pseudoprinciple is something that doesn't actually mean squat to you - like bringing democracy to distant hellholes at great cost - but you think that it might to somebody that you are trying to persuade, so you trot it out and blow the dust off of it for the occasion, as when justifying Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

We saw that again when another poster emphatically alerted us that prohibition leads to black markets because he doesn't want to see a prohibition on his guns. But the same poster seemed to support a prohibition on abortion, where black markets meant back alley butcher shops that often killed women with sepsis or hemorrhaging. No problem.

That poster doesn't care about black markets. He wants his guns. He's just hoping you'll let him have his guns, and offering arguments that he wouldn't accept if applied to issues that he feels oppositely about, as with abortion prohibition.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#582428 Jan 4, 2013
UR BS wrote:
In actuality I don't need to do anything.
At least you're getting in some typing practice.
UR BS wrote:
You did not see the original post, or the reply so you are jumping to er defense with no substantiating evidence.
How do you know what I saw? Are you going to answer that?

I also just told you that my defense is of a position, and it is conditional.

For the record, I did see those posts. I just don't have perfect memory, and don't pretend to have it.
UR BS wrote:
I am not going back and try to find her exact post. I know what she said, Nano knows what she said, if you agree or not is of little concern to me.
What is your concern then?
UR BS wrote:
As I said try refering to someone as an IT and se the response you get.
I don't care what the response is. The response is voluntary, variable, and irrelevant.
UR BS wrote:
As to moving goalposts I never set any goalposts so why would I want to move something?
To make your argument easier.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#582429 Jan 4, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's an oldie but goodie:
Two campers are walking through the forest when they suddenly encounter a grizzly bear. The bear rears up on his hind legs and lets out a terrifying roar. Both campers are frozen in their tracks. The first camper whispers, "I'm sure glad I wore my running shoes today."
"It doesn't matter what kind of shoes you're wearing, you're not gonna outrun that bear," replies the second.
"I don't have to outrun the bear," the first man answers. "I just have to outrun YOU."
I'm a bomb technician.

If you see me running, try to keep up.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#582430 Jan 4, 2013
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes she did that was a large part of our argument that she somehow along with IANS don't seem to see anything wrong with it while I look at it as being ultra insulting and a demonstartion of no class.
Like calling somebody a fudgeugly tranny?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#582431 Jan 4, 2013
wilderide wrote:
I prefer "Prickles". Seems to me there was a time when she wasn't such a miserable hag.
Maybe. I used to treat her better and feel better about her, but I can't tell if that's because she changed, or because it took me that long to appreciate the degree of her misanthropy. I don't see any effort at all on her part to be liked or likeable, or to make another person happy. Can that be? If so, I can't relate at all. And that's why I call her not fully human. Sure, she probably has 23 pairs of human chromosomes. But they can't all be working.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#582432 Jan 4, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Now I am seriously disappointed in your deductive reasoning skills.
The M-16 rifle was adapted for semi-automatic, three-round burst, and full-automatic fire. An AR-15 is semi-auto only. Which doesn't even matter when the AR-15 was not found in the school. Which means that it was not used in the shooting. The shooter did not leave the school put the assault rifle away and then go back in side to shoot himself.
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/defensive...

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#582433 Jan 4, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Why would I want someone I despise to like me?
You misspelled "unlikable", you nitwit.
Spell check of unlikeable

Correct spelling: unlikeable

Other synonyms:
disagreeable, unsympathetic, unappealing, disliked, unkindly, unlikable, closed.
Examples of usage:
1) The weight of evidence justifies the belief that Bligh, though a sailor of unequivocal skill and dauntless courage, was an unlikeable man, and that aversion to service under him was a factor contributing to the mutiny which cannot be explained away.- "The Life of Captain Matthew Flinders", Ernest Scott.

Nitwit^2

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#582434 Jan 4, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I was asking Ar Ar.
He seems to think that "defeat armor" doesn't mean killing the occupant of said armor.
And the context here was concerning primarily the invention of the gun and its stated purpose being to defeat the armor of the day.
But feel free to help him out.
The fact remains if you really want to stop people from getting killed by guns then stop fighting wars. Stop making guns and quit sending troops to the middle east and stop drone attacks How likely is that?

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#582435 Jan 4, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Each of who?
And are you offering me a gun or threatening me?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#582436 Jan 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Yeah the Marine rifle company's are renowned for inflicting casualties with their rifles. Are you somehow comparing their creed to the guy who hunts deer for food?
Yes. She said that guns were made for killing. Somebody said the Chinese invented them to kill armored warriors. They have now found their way into other arenas where killing is popular - hunting and murder, for example. Why? Because they can kill, which is why most gun owners have them as well.

Sure, you can use them in other ways besides killing. You can rob a bank. But they only work because they can kill.

Or, you can maintain the peace like a sheriff or cop. But they only work because they can kill.

Even at shooting ranges, where people learn to hit their intended targets better, that target is often a man shaped silhouette with a target on the chest. Here's one in a hoodie:
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/u...

So what are guns for?

Since: Feb 12

Germany

#582437 Jan 4, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
At least you're getting in some typing practice.
<quoted text>
How do you know what I saw? Are you going to answer that?
I also just told you that my defense is of a position, and it is conditional.
For the record, I did see those posts. I just don't have perfect memory, and don't pretend to have it.
<quoted text>
What is your concern then?
<quoted text>
I don't care what the response is. The response is voluntary, variable, and irrelevant.
<quoted text>
To make your argument easier.
Don't care about the typing practice.
You keep making statements about the post and if you had seen it then you would know the context and the intention.
Perfect memory is not required.
I don't have a concern. You seem to have one in that you are defending her comment. I addressed her directly and told her that I felt the comment was below her. You see even though we almost always disagree ahe would normally not stoop to those levels.
The response is not irrelevent. You are contending that calling someone an, "IT" is neutral and is just fine. I am saying if that is true then call some one an IT and see what response you get. The response is everything.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#582438 Jan 4, 2013
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
How about this, BITE ME PUNK!
People here do eventually show themselves for what they are, don't they?

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#582439 Jan 4, 2013
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't care about the typing practice.
You keep making statements about the post and if you had seen it then you would know the context and the intention.
Perfect memory is not required.
I don't have a concern. You seem to have one in that you are defending her comment. I addressed her directly and told her that I felt the comment was below her. You see even though we almost always disagree ahe would normally not stoop to those levels.
The response is not irrelevent. You are contending that calling someone an, "IT" is neutral and is just fine. I am saying if that is true then call some one an IT and see what response you get. The response is everything.
Bla bla bla.

OTTG

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#582440 Jan 4, 2013
UR BS wrote:
Don't care about the typing practice.
You keep making statements about the post and if you had seen it then you would know the context and the intention.
Your "if-then" statement is not true.
UR BS wrote:
Perfect memory is not required.
By who? I require direct quotes or links. I also don't accept other peoples conclusions by fiat. I found yours to be lacking, so I rejected it.
UR BS wrote:
I don't have a concern. You seem to have one in that you are defending her comment.
I think it was when you linked her use of a pronoun to the Holocaust that I became concerned.
UR BS wrote:
I addressed her directly and told her that I felt the comment was below her. You see even though we almost always disagree ahe would normally not stoop to those levels.
You still haven't demonstrated any stooping. You've just asserted it. That's not good enough.
UR BS wrote:
The response is not irrelevent. You are contending that calling someone an, "IT" is neutral and is just fine. I am saying if that is true then call some one an IT and see what response you get. The response is everything.
That is not my contention.

The response has no bearing on my contention.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#582441 Jan 4, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>No- I do NOT see guns as manly and would never have dated any man who owned a gun- never mind MARRIED one. It's a total turn-off and about as UNmanly as one can be IMO.
If you don't NEED guns then why have them? No matter how balanced you think your kids are, your wife is or YOU are- having guns presents a RISK- period.
And yes- you DO think you need them- you've posted here that your home is safer with guns than a home without them.
Good- so if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night and catches you by surprise out of a sound sleep, how is your GUN going to protect you unless you SLEEP with it right by your bedside or under your pillow?
Gonna ask the intruders to wait a minute so that you can go to your gun safe, turn the combination, open it up and THEN aim it at the intruder?
And if your guns are anywhere BUT in a safe which is kept locked at ALL times, you being a gun owner is posing a threat not only to yourself, but to your wife and your children.
Gun safe?!? LMAO!

My kids are teens, they aren't 3 yrs old & they know how to shoot.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min Wisdom of Ages 701,828
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 11 min Richard The Lion... 81,012
O.J. Nicole & MARCUS: Fatal Attraction 21 min Doctor REALITY 9
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 40 min Sammy 448,429
There is Everything Wrong with Abortion (Nov '07) 49 min Sammy 223,326
should male cheerleaders wear cheerleading skir... (Mar '14) 2 hr Ryan 21
Democrats Are Communists, Believe Me 5 hr Prince of Darkness 2