Homeland Security suggests we all brandish scissors against mass murderers...

[theDoctorisIn]

You want me to think that, because the guy who heard the shots didn't kill somebody, it somehow proves you are right? Can you say desperation?

You asked for a hypothetical, and I gave you one. (Actually, 2)

Attempting to change my argument is usually either a sign that 1.) you don't understand what I'm talking about or 2.) you're backtracking.

I asked you to explain how you came to the conclusion that armed citizens would make things worse. You have danced around for I don't know how long to avoid answering a simple question. I understand why you did that now, but it would have saved us both a lot of time if you had simply admitted you were making a ridiculous point in an attempt to justify something you put no thought into.

Well, I see it differently.

I see it as you as completely misunderstanding my argument, then going off on tangents in an attempt to "prove" that completely misunderstood argument "wrong".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

First, you have to prove that that someone is stupid enough to pick up a stapler and run around in the situation you described.

After you do that, you have to prove that Pete would not have shot the idiot with a stapler because he is stupid enough to run around when he is shooting people.

Then you have to prove that Joe is actually dumb enough to shoot the guy with a stapler when Pete came armed with smoke grenades and an assault rifle because he thought the stapler looked like an AR-15.

Your example is so pathetic it only happens in movies.

I think you might be confused as to what a "hypothetical situation" is.
How exactly would I go about "proving" anything?

Are you claiming that the situation I described is impossible?

So it is not a hypothesis, it is a wild accusation. You could have said that in the first place instead of trying to dress it up as something you actually thought through.

Hypothesis | Define Hypothesis at Dictionary.com

I think the problem is that you're confusing the words "hypothesis" and "hypothetical".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheticals

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's pretty simple. One is an opinion based on an action, the other is a law based on the opinion.

You didn't have to prove me right.



I agree, you don't think.

Ad homs are also generally a good indicator that you don't understand what I'm saying.



But I haven't done that. That's my point.

You assumed that's what I was saying. But it's not.


I have no idea what you're talking about. I think you might have lost the thread of this conversation.

This would be another example of you attempting to fill in the blanks with complete nonsense. I've said nothing of the sort.

This would be you attempting to deflect from your stupidity by blaming it on others.

No, not quite.

You are creating opinions and assigning them to me. Correcting that isn't "deflection".

I am not creating anything, you said it was stupid to have guns in the office. You then argued that it would result in more deaths if someone started shooting. Unless you are going to walk either of those statements back, I stick by everything I stated about your opinions not being based on thinking. You should stop letting your emotions run your life.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You asked for a hypothetical, and I gave you one. (Actually, 2)

Attempting to change my argument is usually either a sign that 1.) you don't understand what I'm talking about or 2.) you're backtracking.

I asked you to explain how you came to the conclusion that armed citizens would make things worse. You have danced around for I don't know how long to avoid answering a simple question. I understand why you did that now, but it would have saved us both a lot of time if you had simply admitted you were making a ridiculous point in an attempt to justify something you put no thought into.

Well, I see it differently.

I see it as you as completely misunderstanding my argument, then going off on tangents in an attempt to "prove" that completely misunderstood argument "wrong".

You have not made an argument, you made an assertion. I asked for an argument, and you made more assertions.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I asked you to explain how you came to the conclusion that armed citizens would make things worse. You have danced around for I don't know how long to avoid answering a simple question. I understand why you did that now, but it would have saved us both a lot of time if you had simply admitted you were making a ridiculous point in an attempt to justify something you put no thought into.

Well, I see it differently.

I see it as you as completely misunderstanding my argument, then going off on tangents in an attempt to "prove" that completely misunderstood argument "wrong".

You have not made an argument, you made an assertion. I asked for an argument, and you made more assertions.

No. I made an argument relevant to the OP of this thread: that there's nothing wrong with the DHS video, the only reason that people are "outraged" about it is because it didn't demand that everyone be armed all the time, and the idea that a civilian Rambo being the solution to workplace violence was stupid.

You then took a small part of that argument, and attempted to turn it the whole of my argument.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think you might be confused as to what a "hypothetical situation" is.
How exactly would I go about "proving" anything?

Are you claiming that the situation I described is impossible?

So it is not a hypothesis, it is a wild accusation. You could have said that in the first place instead of trying to dress it up as something you actually thought through.

Hypothesis | Define Hypothesis at Dictionary.com

I think the problem is that you're confusing the words "hypothesis" and "hypothetical".

Hypotheticals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hypothetical, as in an argument based on a hypothesis?

: being or involving a hypothesis : conjectural <hypothetical arguments> <a hypothetical situation>

Hypothetical - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The fault does not lie with the person relying on the proper use of the language, it lies with the person that thinks words mean something other than what they do. In order for you to actually have a hypothetical situation you have to think about the entire circumstances. It is not enough to insist that the only factors in play are Joe confusing a stapler for a gun and shooting someone, thus resulting in a higher body count. You have to account for the various factors involved. Is the shooting occurring near Joe? How large is the office? Is it coming from the direction the guy with the stapler is running, or is he running toward the shooting with the intent of using the stapler as a weapon?

In other words, you have to think, something you demonstrably failed to do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, I see it differently.

I see it as you as completely misunderstanding my argument, then going off on tangents in an attempt to "prove" that completely misunderstood argument "wrong".

You have not made an argument, you made an assertion. I asked for an argument, and you made more assertions.

No. I made an argument relevant to the OP of this thread: that there's nothing wrong with the DHS video, the only reason that people are "outraged" about it is because it didn't demand that everyone be armed all the time, and the idea that a civilian Rambo being the solution to workplace violence was stupid.

You then took a small part of that argument, and attempted to turn it the whole of my argument.

And I responded to that assertion by asking why having the most effective tools to use in that situation is stupid. You responded by asserting you never said it was stupid.

Lets try again, why is it stupid to have the most effective tools to deal with a shooter available to everyone? Do you honestly believe it makes more sense to pull scissors on somebody who is trying to shoot you from across the room than to pull a gun?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So it is not a hypothesis, it is a wild accusation. You could have said that in the first place instead of trying to dress it up as something you actually thought through.

Hypothesis | Define Hypothesis at Dictionary.com

I think the problem is that you're confusing the words "hypothesis" and "hypothetical".

Hypotheticals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hypothetical, as in an argument based on a hypothesis?

: being or involving a hypothesis : conjectural <hypothetical arguments> <a hypothetical situation>

Hypothetical - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The fault does not lie with the person relying on the proper use of the language, it lies with the person that thinks words mean something other than what they do. In order for you to actually have a hypothetical situation you have to think about the entire circumstances. It is not enough to insist that the only factors in play are Joe confusing a stapler for a gun and shooting someone, thus resulting in a higher body count. You have to account for the various factors involved. Is the shooting occurring near Joe? How large is the office? Is it coming from the direction the guy with the stapler is running, or is he running toward the shooting with the intent of using the stapler as a weapon?

In other words, you have to think, something you demonstrably failed to do.

Again, ad homs really don't make you look smarter, nor do they make me look stupider. I can't for the life of my figure out why you don't understand that.

You seem to want me to describe a hypothetical in detail, so you can figure out a way to "beat" my hypothetical - which is entirely beside the point of my argument.

My argument is that my hypothetical is possible, if not likely. Your argument seems to revolve around finding an exception to my hypothetical, and claiming that your "solution" makes my argument invalid.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You have not made an argument, you made an assertion. I asked for an argument, and you made more assertions.

No. I made an argument relevant to the OP of this thread: that there's nothing wrong with the DHS video, the only reason that people are "outraged" about it is because it didn't demand that everyone be armed all the time, and the idea that a civilian Rambo being the solution to workplace violence was stupid.

You then took a small part of that argument, and attempted to turn it the whole of my argument.

And I responded to that assertion by asking why having the most effective tools to use in that situation is stupid. You responded by asserting you never said it was stupid.

Lets try again, why is it stupid to have the most effective tools to deal with a shooter available to everyone? Do you honestly believe it makes more sense to pull scissors on somebody who is trying to shoot you from across the room than to pull a gun?

Again, you're creating arguments from whole cloth, and assigning them to me.

At no point have I suggested that people shouldn't have access to guns. Nor have I said anything close to claiming a pair of scissors is more effective than a gun, or "makes more sense".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. I made an argument relevant to the OP of this thread: that there's nothing wrong with the DHS video, the only reason that people are "outraged" about it is because it didn't demand that everyone be armed all the time, and the idea that a civilian Rambo being the solution to workplace violence was stupid.

You then took a small part of that argument, and attempted to turn it the whole of my argument.

And I responded to that assertion by asking why having the most effective tools to use in that situation is stupid. You responded by asserting you never said it was stupid.

Lets try again, why is it stupid to have the most effective tools to deal with a shooter available to everyone? Do you honestly believe it makes more sense to pull scissors on somebody who is trying to shoot you from across the room than to pull a gun?

Again, you're creating arguments from whole cloth, and assigning them to me.

At no point have I suggested that people shouldn't have access to guns. Nor have I said anything close to claiming a pair of scissors is more effective than a gun, or "makes more sense".

Again, you avoid the question.

Why is it stupid to have guns in the office in case someone goes off? If it is stupid,m why don't police lock their guns in lock boxes before they enter their offices?