McBell
Unbound
ROTFLMAO
it is no fault of mine that you are so eager to make faulty assumptions.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Las Vegas Shooting
- Thread starter Onyx
- Start date
it is no fault of mine that you are so eager to make faulty assumptions.
Sure do.
Let's examine your post....
"I believe that is as unethical and senseless an argument as saying people should be
able to legally have napalm or a nuke, so long as you don't do anything funny with it."
You're equating what I said with napalm & nuclear weapons.
This is utterly ridiculous. I wonder what response your equation would
get from survivors of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs?
It's a terrible thing to kill &/or injure 500+ people, but nuclear weapons
can kill many tens of thousands with lasting radiation dangers.
Gun control policy discussions cannot be based upon nuclear weapon
limitations. There are unfathomably vast differences both in effect & law.
Yet I'm the one who is either insane, senseless or unethical!
Barsh flimshaw!
I didn't see you ask me.
Which post was it?
The Canuckistanian penguin did though, & I responded.
Was it unsatisfactory?
I already explained what my intentions were, and don't need you to attempt to explain it back to me. So I'll reply again:
No I didn't. In fact, the opposite. I assumed you'd be opposed to owning nukes and napalm and used it to highlight that people shouldn't be able to own things that cause massive amounts of death for no real purpose.
They'd probably tell you they've long since banned guns and that the US is scary in their gun violence statistics, but whatever.
Your intentions are sure at odds with what you actually posted.
Again...
"I believe that is as unethical and senseless an argument as saying people should be
able to legally have napalm or a nuke, so long as you don't do anything funny with it."
You equated what I support with having but restraining from using napalm & nuclear weapons.
To say that I would oppose owning napalm & nukes does not defeat this horrible & false equation.
You started off calling us either "unethical" or "insane".
And trying to make that better, you end up making it worse.
I think I'm done beating this dead horse.
Last edited:
The use is still unethical or insane to me. That hasn't changed.
However, I never accused you of being for private ownership of nukes or napalm, instead used an example to highlight the futility of using a type of argument which applies to both. Looks like you're just reaching for something to pick at.
But your barb wask directed at those of us who support
ownership rights, not using the weapons as he did.
You've not backed down from that accusation.
What I actually said was
If it ruffles some fathers that I think that about them well...*shrug.* I'm not going to apologize for it.
I think the same thing about people who believe gay people deserve to be tortured forever, and I'm friends with some of those people.
I responded to a different post.
A less charitable poster might accuse you of being either insane
or unethical for misdirected insults & desperate backpedalling.
Fortunately, I'm just oozing magnanimity.....well, oozing something.
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
These two have chemistry.
Like baking soda & vinegar, eh.
We strive to entertain!
Oozing something indeed.
Not backpeddling, just not taking your bait.
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
You kind of did when you responded.
It's amazing that every time I go out to deal with either landscaping
or old machinery, I come back with fresh wounds dripping all over.
No, the bait wasn't to respond. He was looking for a direct insult to take issue with. I wouldn't give it.
Baiting?
I'm not looking to rile her.
I object to posts which express unwarranted personal hostility, & then
ramp it up with ridiculous equivalence of rifles & nuclear weapons.
This is becoming too 3rd person to comport with RF rules.
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
I've never known bait to work in such a way that a response was not necessary.
What kind of supernatural bait is that?
Baiting isn't just getting someone to respond. It can also be getting someone to respond in the way you want them to to follow up with a specific retort. Less baiting in the memetic way, more in the debate way, or leading a witness.
I wasn't giving him what he wanted.
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
Still confused, but if it works for you.
Aye, you denied much of what you said.
How long should we keep this up?
As long as you want. I thought you were done?
I didn't deny anything. Just kept you from making it about you, so you could feign personal injury.