We should ban Hollywood films that glamorize gun violence. Matt Damon causes mass shootings

In other words you can't take responsibility for your own words.

Yeah, no shit.
in other words, you choose to go apeshit on a generalization and derail the discussion and i'm out now.
Sorry Pogo, you are one of my favorite posters and I often agree with you on most of your posts, but I'm with Ice on this one... I also get these "wordsmiths" derailing arguments all the time pointing out typos or lazy language that I use and it is obnoxious to have to reexplain myself all the time to people who know good and well what I am talking about. You are a bright guy and completely capable of holding your own in a debate so I hope you lay off the word games in the future and keep the discussion on point as to the substance of what the people you engage with are speaking to.

It's not that complex --- you simply can't put forth an argument, and then when the flaws in that argument are pointed out, declare that "words don't mean what they mean and therefore I win". That's complete bullshit.

If he wasn't prepared to defend his point he should have simply never made it.
He did defend it. He spoke to the context of "Always" that he used in relation to his experience and said that he didn't mean to speak of everybody in the world. He also conceded that "always" wasn't the appropriate word, although, I think you already knew that. You went for a cheap victory over the poor use of a word and derailed the conversation to focus on that one, relatively insignificant, point. You are better than that.

Apparently you didn't read the exchange. I'll summarize.

Nobody anywhere suggested "always" means "since the beginning of time". We all take that to mean, "in the modern experience".

His contention was that "you look back, kids have always played with toy guns". I then did just that, looked back and analyzed the current events shooter as having been born in 1953 or 1954. That's pretty specific. I presented the case of what a kid born in either of those years would have been indoctrinated with in his time.

Then I contrasted an imaginary older brother born ten years earlier and noted how that brother would not have been exposed to the same media indoctrination, because it did not yet exist. Which in turn means said media indoctrination has a finite start point in the time continuum, which did not exist just ten years prior, which refutes the idea of "always", no matter how metaphorically you interpret it.

In other words something changed. There was no "always" before it got put there. That's the whole point of post 31.

His contention was that kids playing with guns is a given
; I'm saying no it isn't, because there's a measurable time when that wasn't the case, and I showed and example of exactly HOW and WHEN it got put there. And before that point that dynamic was not there --- hence "always" doesn't work, as it isn't a 'given' --- it's artificially introduced.

Is there some bizarro reason I'm not allowed to make that point, or what? :dunno:

Or is there some obscure definition of "always" that extends to 1953 but somehow does not extend to 1943? Did Congress declare an "End of Always" day sometime in 1949?

:banghead:

I ain't the one trying to derail with semantics here -- he is. I find that usually when people are derailing like this it's to take the focus off the underlying point, because they're scared shitless of it.

Ah, but a brother born 10 or even 20 years would have had the same indoctrination. You do of course realize that before TV, there were radio and movie serials don't you? You do realize that toy guns predate the 50's don't you?

After a 12-year-old boy was shot by police in Cleveland, Americans confront our history with toy guns yet again

"Guns have been made for children for more than 150 years, as toys and as training tools for boys who would follow their fathers into hunting. The original Daisy air rifle, first built in 1888, was marketed door-to-door to farm families, says Joe Murfin, vice president of marketing for Daisy Outdoor Products in Rogers, Ark., which is also home to the Rogers Daisy Airgun Museum."

Serial Films
 
So here is a hypothetical situation that I would like you to answer.

Lets say, you are walking down the street, when suddenly out of the dark a man yelling Allah Ooh Akbar comes at you, wielding a machete. I just happen to be walking a little behind you and see the event that is about to happen.
1. Should I continue walking but not do anything and allow the Radical Muslim with the intent to do you bodily harm, to cut your head off, because it would not be PC to stop him?
2. Draw my concealed weapon, and remove the Peaceful Religious person from the Earth and allow Allah to sort out the mess?(In other words take the scum out?)


Choice number 1 or 2, don't need any monologue about how you think the people deserve to die because of what the US has done over there, just type, (1) or (2), it is that easy...
Something is malfunctioning in your head. Why in the world do you think it is not PC to stop a guy with a machete? What makes you say that a crazy guy with a knife is a Peaceful Religious person? You gotta try a little harder to find realism when working with these fantasy scenarios.
i·ro·ny
[ˈīrənē]
NOUN
  1. the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect:
    "“Don't go overboard with the gratitude,” he rejoined with heavy irony"
    synonyms: sarcasm · causticity · cynicism · mockery · satire · sardonicism
Islam The Religion of Peace | The Liberal Bilge

View attachment 152816
Saying Islam is the religion of peace and then making up a fake scenario about a crazy guy with a knife are not comparable and being a muslim does not make everybody "peaceful". What are you not understanding?
I am repeating what the liberals/progs have been telling me since the Muslim in Chief took office back in 2009. I knew long before that , that Islam would rather kill you and not very nicely either, beheading for one, yet I can never get a libtard to answer me, if they would want me to save them if I could. Then other libfucks jump in the argument totally clueless, then try to chastise me for what I was just repeating what liberals have been saying for the past 8 years. So you are cordially invited to go fuck yourself.
You low IQ's are always so quick to jump to the insults when you fail to rationally explain your idiotic statements. Your theory on Islam is like saying if you are Christian you support child molestation... Funny that your distorted parroting of what you think Libs have been saying is your justification for your dumb ass comments. All you are doing is displaying an inability to comprehend your opponents arguments and your lack of ability to think for yourself.
You low IQ's are always so quick to jump to the insults when you fail to rationally explain your idiotic statements. Your theory on Islam is like saying if you are Christian you support child molestation...
As I said before, I have spent 5 1/2 years in Saudi Arabia how many years have you spent out of the US?
 
Something is malfunctioning in your head. Why in the world do you think it is not PC to stop a guy with a machete? What makes you say that a crazy guy with a knife is a Peaceful Religious person? You gotta try a little harder to find realism when working with these fantasy scenarios.
i·ro·ny
[ˈīrənē]
NOUN
  1. the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect:
    "“Don't go overboard with the gratitude,” he rejoined with heavy irony"
    synonyms: sarcasm · causticity · cynicism · mockery · satire · sardonicism
Islam The Religion of Peace | The Liberal Bilge

View attachment 152816
Saying Islam is the religion of peace and then making up a fake scenario about a crazy guy with a knife are not comparable and being a muslim does not make everybody "peaceful". What are you not understanding?
I am repeating what the liberals/progs have been telling me since the Muslim in Chief took office back in 2009. I knew long before that , that Islam would rather kill you and not very nicely either, beheading for one, yet I can never get a libtard to answer me, if they would want me to save them if I could. Then other libfucks jump in the argument totally clueless, then try to chastise me for what I was just repeating what liberals have been saying for the past 8 years. So you are cordially invited to go fuck yourself.
You low IQ's are always so quick to jump to the insults when you fail to rationally explain your idiotic statements. Your theory on Islam is like saying if you are Christian you support child molestation... Funny that your distorted parroting of what you think Libs have been saying is your justification for your dumb ass comments. All you are doing is displaying an inability to comprehend your opponents arguments and your lack of ability to think for yourself.
You low IQ's are always so quick to jump to the insults when you fail to rationally explain your idiotic statements. Your theory on Islam is like saying if you are Christian you support child molestation...
As I said before, I have spent 5 1/2 years in Saudi Arabia how many years have you spent out of the US?
I lived in Spain for a spell. I've also had a Muslim from Pakistan as a roommate and business partner. What does that have to do with anything? You are diverting the conversation with nonsense. If you have a relevant point to make then make it.
 
in other words, you choose to go apeshit on a generalization and derail the discussion and i'm out now.
Sorry Pogo, you are one of my favorite posters and I often agree with you on most of your posts, but I'm with Ice on this one... I also get these "wordsmiths" derailing arguments all the time pointing out typos or lazy language that I use and it is obnoxious to have to reexplain myself all the time to people who know good and well what I am talking about. You are a bright guy and completely capable of holding your own in a debate so I hope you lay off the word games in the future and keep the discussion on point as to the substance of what the people you engage with are speaking to.

It's not that complex --- you simply can't put forth an argument, and then when the flaws in that argument are pointed out, declare that "words don't mean what they mean and therefore I win". That's complete bullshit.

If he wasn't prepared to defend his point he should have simply never made it.
He did defend it. He spoke to the context of "Always" that he used in relation to his experience and said that he didn't mean to speak of everybody in the world. He also conceded that "always" wasn't the appropriate word, although, I think you already knew that. You went for a cheap victory over the poor use of a word and derailed the conversation to focus on that one, relatively insignificant, point. You are better than that.

Apparently you didn't read the exchange. I'll summarize.

Nobody anywhere suggested "always" means "since the beginning of time". We all take that to mean, "in the modern experience".

His contention was that "you look back, kids have always played with toy guns". I then did just that, looked back and analyzed the current events shooter as having been born in 1953 or 1954. That's pretty specific. I presented the case of what a kid born in either of those years would have been indoctrinated with in his time.

Then I contrasted an imaginary older brother born ten years earlier and noted how that brother would not have been exposed to the same media indoctrination, because it did not yet exist. Which in turn means said media indoctrination has a finite start point in the time continuum, which did not exist just ten years prior, which refutes the idea of "always", no matter how metaphorically you interpret it.

In other words something changed. There was no "always" before it got put there. That's the whole point of post 31.

His contention was that kids playing with guns is a given
; I'm saying no it isn't, because there's a measurable time when that wasn't the case, and I showed and example of exactly HOW and WHEN it got put there. And before that point that dynamic was not there --- hence "always" doesn't work, as it isn't a 'given' --- it's artificially introduced.

Is there some bizarro reason I'm not allowed to make that point, or what? :dunno:

Or is there some obscure definition of "always" that extends to 1953 but somehow does not extend to 1943? Did Congress declare an "End of Always" day sometime in 1949?

:banghead:

I ain't the one trying to derail with semantics here -- he is. I find that usually when people are derailing like this it's to take the focus off the underlying point, because they're scared shitless of it.

Ah, but a brother born 10 or even 20 years would have had the same indoctrination. You do of course realize that before TV, there were radio and movie serials don't you? You do realize that toy guns predate the 50's don't you?

After a 12-year-old boy was shot by police in Cleveland, Americans confront our history with toy guns yet again

"Guns have been made for children for more than 150 years, as toys and as training tools for boys who would follow their fathers into hunting. The original Daisy air rifle, first built in 1888, was marketed door-to-door to farm families, says Joe Murfin, vice president of marketing for Daisy Outdoor Products in Rogers, Ark., which is also home to the Rogers Daisy Airgun Museum."

Serial Films

Sure but not the kind and intensity of 24/7 indoctrination I cited for the example. Gunplay and gun-worship might have been a theme in his movie theater in pre-TV daze but it wouldn't have been anywhere near as pervasive. Once he leaves that theater he re-enters the world of reality and the theater cannot follow him. Television is a whole 'nother smoke. It literally LIVES in the house. It's ubiquitous. Orwell could see it coming.

I deliberately intended to draw attention to TV specifically, as it began to monopolize time and ran that theme home both during programming as well as the commercials... which was then mimicked and coattailed by other concurrently emerging outlets/media including superhero comics and the toy store, and later video games. It's a self-feeding grand psychological parasite and it begins with TV, from which it spreads like cancer.

Your citations of toy gun history are food for thought, but the fact that they existed and were marketed door-to-door (or wherever) doesn't tell us that they were marketed effectively. As far as efficacious indoctrination, nothing can touch the power of the instrument we deliberately plunk down in a place of honor in our homes and public places --- a place that used to host people talking to people --- that proceeds to hypnotize its victims like obedient sponges ordered to sit down and shut up while it dictates every sensory input. That's significant.

The poster's position was that this gun obsession had always been there in childhood; mine is that no that's not the case, that it was artificially inseminated there BY television, specifically because it's a sensory-emotional trigger that will sell and therefore make the TV station money, and that before that was done a child would typically be more concerned with the realities of basic survival and schooling (and in previous times with what needed to be done on the farm) and not with sitting back like a sponge watching an endless torrent of people killing people. I'm saying that was a significant paradigm shift that had a finite beginning, and a causation for it.

Hence my taking exception to the idea that "kids have always played with guns". I don't believe that's the case.
 
Last edited:
I don't know who you are, I suppose it would depend on how you use your firearm.
What about the other guys I told you about, do you consider them good guys with guns?

By the way, I am a veteran who served to keep Communists out of this country so you could today, be free with your speech on this forum. Does that help you in your decision if I am a good guy with a gun?

I don't know you, you would probably have the best of intentions but could cause more harm than good.

Cops are mostly good and even they on occasion accidentally shoot innocent bystanders and they have training. I really wish anyone who carries would take mandatory training. Some states to carry concealed require nothing.
I don't know you, you would probably have the best of intentions but could cause more harm than good.
Really! Please explain , I am very interested I how I who was trained in the use of firearms could cause more harm than good?

From my perspective, I have no idea who you are. You could end up shooting another guy who pulled out his gun in response to the initial shooter thinking he was the one who started it. Like I said, in some states you don't need any training in order to carry.
So here is a hypothetical situation that I would like you to answer.

Lets say, you are walking down the street, when suddenly out of the dark a man yelling Allah Ooh Akbar comes at you, wielding a machete. I just happen to be walking a little behind you and see the event that is about to happen.
1. Should I continue walking but not do anything and allow the Radical Muslim with the intent to do you bodily harm, to cut your head off, because it would not be PC to stop him?
2. Draw my concealed weapon, and remove the Peaceful Religious person from the Earth and allow Allah to sort out the mess?(In other words take the scum out?)


Choice number 1 or 2, don't need any monologue about how you think the people deserve to die because of what the US has done over there, just type, (1) or (2), it is that easy...

You could simply say to him, "sabah elkhir! Kif elhal?" and exchange pleasantries.
You know --- as if you were talking to a human.

I did that at a Middle Eastern restaurant just a little while ago. They loved it.
 

This is the gun cult's America. The NRA, gun manufacturers, Republicans in Congress. There is no body count high enough that would override their desire for money. They are the hollow men. The soulless of the population.

That chart is a damning disgusting snapshot of America that every other nation on Earth sees in the news every day now. And the gun cult have the gall to call themselves Christians. They aren't, they use even that religion as a front for their lying machine.
 

Forum List

Back
Top