CDZ Rape and guns, and the women in your life....

[Pogo]

I've learned two things from this thread. Pogo apparently supports rape, and dead brown kids. What an asshole.

While funny , is that post appropriate for this forum?

Also, since this is the "clean zone" I wonder , is there a "dirty zone?" or is that just the rest of this board in general?

Ah, so you didn't recognize sarcasm while claiming to use it yourself.

Aaron is mocking the OP. I get that even if you don't. And the OP himself is trying to hide behind the CDZ so he can troll people. As he just did. He thinks it gives him "immunity" or some shit.

Trolling, no. Asking an actual question about an issue. Asking, politely, for those on the anti gun side to explain the consequences of their belief......

Still waiting for that quote.

 

[DandyDonovan]

I've learned two things from this thread. Pogo apparently supports rape, and dead brown kids. What an asshole.

While funny , is that post appropriate for this forum?

Also, since this is the "clean zone" I wonder , is there a "dirty zone?" or is that just the rest of this board in general?

Ah, so you didn't recognize sarcasm while claiming to use it yourself.

Aaron is mocking the OP. I get that even if you don't. And the OP himself is trying to hide behind the CDZ so he can troll people. As he just did. He thinks it gives him "immunity" or some shit.

Trolling, no. Asking an actual question about an issue. Asking, politely, for those on the anti gun side to explain the consequences of their belief......

Wanting gun control does not mean you want to see women raped, come on now.

 

[Pogo]

It's a rerun of the Bernard Williams/Michael Dukakis debate question of 1988. Appeal to Emotion fallacy.

I assume you're in the multitude of threads about the two little brown kids who died saying similar? Oh, that's right.

You ass-sume much. It's a chronic disease here.

I was being sarcastic , of course, no one really thought you were going to post anything negative about a liberal.

I have no idea where you're going here but I'm pretty sure that (a) the OP is rarely if ever described as "a Liberal" and (b) that I'm not required to jump into every thread there is.

I was talking about you as the liberal, not the OP - who is clearly a one issue pony.

I've actually read your comments on several topics, and while I disagree with your opinions on quite a few things, you strike me as at least somewhat reasonable, so do try to not disappoint me in that regard.

Of course you are not required to be in every thread. No one said otherwise, but as illustrated in the "is something broken here thread" it's going to take reasonable people who call out their own much more often than they call out the "other side" for bad behavior to fix this country. So , I suggest to you that YOU could be one of those voices on the left here who says "that's stupid" when someone on the left does or says something stupid, rather than just attacking conservatives.

And yes , this thread is stupid. Opposing gun ownership no more means you want women to be raped than defending gun ownership means you want to see people get shot.

Once again, I have no familiarity with whatever threads you refer to and most likely was not interested if I saw them at all.

Fallacy hunting is what I do here but I'm not going to pass judgment on material I've never seen. And I don't have an "own".

 

[DandyDonovan]

I assume you're in the multitude of threads about the two little brown kids who died saying similar? Oh, that's right.

You ass-sume much. It's a chronic disease here.

I was being sarcastic , of course, no one really thought you were going to post anything negative about a liberal.

I have no idea where you're going here but I'm pretty sure that (a) the OP is rarely if ever described as "a Liberal" and (b) that I'm not required to jump into every thread there is.

I was talking about you as the liberal, not the OP - who is clearly a one issue pony.

I've actually read your comments on several topics, and while I disagree with your opinions on quite a few things, you strike me as at least somewhat reasonable, so do try to not disappoint me in that regard.

Of course you are not required to be in every thread. No one said otherwise, but as illustrated in the "is something broken here thread" it's going to take reasonable people who call out their own much more often than they call out the "other side" for bad behavior to fix this country. So , I suggest to you that YOU could be one of those voices on the left here who says "that's stupid" when someone on the left does or says something stupid, rather than just attacking conservatives.

And yes , this thread is stupid. Opposing gun ownership no more means you want women to be raped than defending gun ownership means you want to see people get shot.

Once again, I have no familiarity with whatever threads you refer to and most likely was not interested if I saw them at all.

Fallacy hunting is what I do here but I'm not going to pass judgment on material I've never seen. And I don't have an "own".

Fair enough, so kindly provide me a single example of you shooting a fallacy from anyone on the left

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

This is a question primarily directed at those who support extreme gun control, up to and including banning and confiscating guns, and ending carrying guns in public.

Would it be better if your wife, daughter, sister, or mother were violently raped, beaten and possibly murdered, or that they had the option to own and carry a gun to stop it?

Guns are the best tool for a woman to fight off a male criminal...actual research shows this. So, by opposing gun ownership, or making it extremely difficult for women to own and carry guns, those very laws make it easier for them to be raped by male criminals. Do you support women being helpless in the face of violent male attackers?

Considering the sheer physical power differences between men and women, any woman who has not had some degree of fight training and does not carry a firearm is bugfuck crazy.

Yes, the chances of your being attacked can be measured in degrees of the astronomical, depending upon where you live, but it only takes one time when you're unprepared.

 

[Pogo]

You ass-sume much. It's a chronic disease here.

I was being sarcastic , of course, no one really thought you were going to post anything negative about a liberal.

I have no idea where you're going here but I'm pretty sure that (a) the OP is rarely if ever described as "a Liberal" and (b) that I'm not required to jump into every thread there is.

I was talking about you as the liberal, not the OP - who is clearly a one issue pony.

I've actually read your comments on several topics, and while I disagree with your opinions on quite a few things, you strike me as at least somewhat reasonable, so do try to not disappoint me in that regard.

Of course you are not required to be in every thread. No one said otherwise, but as illustrated in the "is something broken here thread" it's going to take reasonable people who call out their own much more often than they call out the "other side" for bad behavior to fix this country. So , I suggest to you that YOU could be one of those voices on the left here who says "that's stupid" when someone on the left does or says something stupid, rather than just attacking conservatives.

And yes , this thread is stupid. Opposing gun ownership no more means you want women to be raped than defending gun ownership means you want to see people get shot.

Once again, I have no familiarity with whatever threads you refer to and most likely was not interested if I saw them at all.

Fallacy hunting is what I do here but I'm not going to pass judgment on material I've never seen. And I don't have an "own".

Fair enough, so kindly provide me a single example of you shooting a fallacy from anyone on the left

I don't need to. It's not my claim. And I'm not the one who suggested there are "sides".
Feel free to peruse my posts, they're not hidden.

 

[2aguy]

I've learned two things from this thread. Pogo apparently supports rape, and dead brown kids. What an asshole.

While funny , is that post appropriate for this forum?

Also, since this is the "clean zone" I wonder , is there a "dirty zone?" or is that just the rest of this board in general?

Ah, so you didn't recognize sarcasm while claiming to use it yourself.

Aaron is mocking the OP. I get that even if you don't. And the OP himself is trying to hide behind the CDZ so he can troll people. As he just did. He thinks it gives him "immunity" or some shit.

Trolling, no. Asking an actual question about an issue. Asking, politely, for those on the anti gun side to explain the consequences of their belief......

Wanting gun control does not mean you want to see women raped, come on now.

It is an end result. The best tool for women to use against male criminals are guns.... those who want to make guns more difficult to own, up to and including banning them, make it less likely that women who want a gun for self defense will be able to get one. That means their best tool to stop a rape will no longer be available....hence, one of the consequences of their policies will be more rapes. Do they understand this, and do they care?

 

[2aguy]

This is a question primarily directed at those who support extreme gun control, up to and including banning and confiscating guns, and ending carrying guns in public.

Would it be better if your wife, daughter, sister, or mother were violently raped, beaten and possibly murdered, or that they had the option to own and carry a gun to stop it?

Guns are the best tool for a woman to fight off a male criminal...actual research shows this. So, by opposing gun ownership, or making it extremely difficult for women to own and carry guns, those very laws make it easier for them to be raped by male criminals. Do you support women being helpless in the face of violent male attackers?

Considering the sheer physical power differences between men and women, any woman who has not had some degree of fight training and does not carry a firearm is bugfuck crazy.

Yes, the chances of your being attacked can be measured in degrees of the astronomical, depending upon where you live, but it only takes one time when you're unprepared.

And that is how you post in the CDZ...thanks.

 

[DandyDonovan]

I was being sarcastic , of course, no one really thought you were going to post anything negative about a liberal.

I have no idea where you're going here but I'm pretty sure that (a) the OP is rarely if ever described as "a Liberal" and (b) that I'm not required to jump into every thread there is.

I was talking about you as the liberal, not the OP - who is clearly a one issue pony.

I've actually read your comments on several topics, and while I disagree with your opinions on quite a few things, you strike me as at least somewhat reasonable, so do try to not disappoint me in that regard.

Of course you are not required to be in every thread. No one said otherwise, but as illustrated in the "is something broken here thread" it's going to take reasonable people who call out their own much more often than they call out the "other side" for bad behavior to fix this country. So , I suggest to you that YOU could be one of those voices on the left here who says "that's stupid" when someone on the left does or says something stupid, rather than just attacking conservatives.

And yes , this thread is stupid. Opposing gun ownership no more means you want women to be raped than defending gun ownership means you want to see people get shot.

Once again, I have no familiarity with whatever threads you refer to and most likely was not interested if I saw them at all.

Fallacy hunting is what I do here but I'm not going to pass judgment on material I've never seen. And I don't have an "own".

Fair enough, so kindly provide me a single example of you shooting a fallacy from anyone on the left

I don't need to. It's not my claim. And I'm not the one who suggested there are "sides".
Feel free to peruse my posts, they're not hidden.

As stated, I already knew you are only concerned about fallacies when one side posts them, I have merely asked that you consider being an agent for change and actually point out such things from ALL sides.

 

[Pogo]

I have no idea where you're going here but I'm pretty sure that (a) the OP is rarely if ever described as "a Liberal" and (b) that I'm not required to jump into every thread there is.

I was talking about you as the liberal, not the OP - who is clearly a one issue pony.

I've actually read your comments on several topics, and while I disagree with your opinions on quite a few things, you strike me as at least somewhat reasonable, so do try to not disappoint me in that regard.

Of course you are not required to be in every thread. No one said otherwise, but as illustrated in the "is something broken here thread" it's going to take reasonable people who call out their own much more often than they call out the "other side" for bad behavior to fix this country. So , I suggest to you that YOU could be one of those voices on the left here who says "that's stupid" when someone on the left does or says something stupid, rather than just attacking conservatives.

And yes , this thread is stupid. Opposing gun ownership no more means you want women to be raped than defending gun ownership means you want to see people get shot.

Once again, I have no familiarity with whatever threads you refer to and most likely was not interested if I saw them at all.

Fallacy hunting is what I do here but I'm not going to pass judgment on material I've never seen. And I don't have an "own".

Fair enough, so kindly provide me a single example of you shooting a fallacy from anyone on the left

I don't need to. It's not my claim. And I'm not the one who suggested there are "sides".
Feel free to peruse my posts, they're not hidden.

As stated, I already knew you are only concerned about fallacies when one side posts them, I have merely asked that you consider being an agent for change and actually point out such things from ALL sides.

Once AGAIN ---- "Sides" is your idea, not mine. I don't believe in 'em.
I'm not here for or against any "side", K? If I have a "side" it is honesty of discourse.

 

[DandyDonovan]

I was talking about you as the liberal, not the OP - who is clearly a one issue pony.

I've actually read your comments on several topics, and while I disagree with your opinions on quite a few things, you strike me as at least somewhat reasonable, so do try to not disappoint me in that regard.

Of course you are not required to be in every thread. No one said otherwise, but as illustrated in the "is something broken here thread" it's going to take reasonable people who call out their own much more often than they call out the "other side" for bad behavior to fix this country. So , I suggest to you that YOU could be one of those voices on the left here who says "that's stupid" when someone on the left does or says something stupid, rather than just attacking conservatives.

And yes , this thread is stupid. Opposing gun ownership no more means you want women to be raped than defending gun ownership means you want to see people get shot.

Once again, I have no familiarity with whatever threads you refer to and most likely was not interested if I saw them at all.

Fallacy hunting is what I do here but I'm not going to pass judgment on material I've never seen. And I don't have an "own".

Fair enough, so kindly provide me a single example of you shooting a fallacy from anyone on the left

I don't need to. It's not my claim. And I'm not the one who suggested there are "sides".
Feel free to peruse my posts, they're not hidden.

As stated, I already knew you are only concerned about fallacies when one side posts them, I have merely asked that you consider being an agent for change and actually point out such things from ALL sides.

Once AGAIN ---- "Sides" is your idea, not mine. I don't believe in 'em.
I'm not here for or against any "side", K? If I have a "side" it is honesty of discourse.

The very fact that you are arguing that there are no "sides" in order to cover for the fact that you have never and will never post anything negative about a liberal or what they have posted proves that the one thing you are NOT here for is honest discourse. And with that I am out of this dumb thread, have a nice day.

 

[Pogo]

Once again, I have no familiarity with whatever threads you refer to and most likely was not interested if I saw them at all.

Fallacy hunting is what I do here but I'm not going to pass judgment on material I've never seen. And I don't have an "own".

Fair enough, so kindly provide me a single example of you shooting a fallacy from anyone on the left

I don't need to. It's not my claim. And I'm not the one who suggested there are "sides".
Feel free to peruse my posts, they're not hidden.

As stated, I already knew you are only concerned about fallacies when one side posts them, I have merely asked that you consider being an agent for change and actually point out such things from ALL sides.

Once AGAIN ---- "Sides" is your idea, not mine. I don't believe in 'em.
I'm not here for or against any "side", K? If I have a "side" it is honesty of discourse.

The very fact that you are arguing that there are no "sides" in order to cover for the fact that you have never and will never post anything negative about a liberal or what they have posted proves that the one thing you are NOT here for is honest discourse. And with that I am out of this dumb thread, have a nice day.

Once AGAIN those are *YOUR* claims, not mine, and as such they bestow the burden of proof on *YOU*, not on me.
Labels are for losers.

 

[Pogo]

I've learned two things from this thread. Pogo apparently supports rape, and dead brown kids. What an asshole.

While funny , is that post appropriate for this forum?

Also, since this is the "clean zone" I wonder , is there a "dirty zone?" or is that just the rest of this board in general?

Ah, so you didn't recognize sarcasm while claiming to use it yourself.

Aaron is mocking the OP. I get that even if you don't. And the OP himself is trying to hide behind the CDZ so he can troll people. As he just did. He thinks it gives him "immunity" or some shit.

Trolling, no. Asking an actual question about an issue. Asking, politely, for those on the anti gun side to explain the consequences of their belief......

Wanting gun control does not mean you want to see women raped, come on now.

It is an end result. The best tool for women to use against male criminals are guns.... those who want to make guns more difficult to own, up to and including banning them, make it less likely that women who want a gun for self defense will be able to get one. That means their best tool to stop a rape will no longer be available....hence, one of the consequences of their policies will be more rapes. Do they understand this, and do they care?

The flaw in your premise is the ass-sumption that rape, and with it gunplay, are inevitable, and therefore one must counteract the other. In other words you address the symptom rather than the disease.

It's the same puerile argument as "the answer to guns is more guns" --- for that matter a mass shooting is the same psychological dynamic as rape: a power trip. THAT is where we start. Because you don't put out a fire by dousing it in gasoline.

 

[2aguy]

While funny , is that post appropriate for this forum?

Also, since this is the "clean zone" I wonder , is there a "dirty zone?" or is that just the rest of this board in general?

Ah, so you didn't recognize sarcasm while claiming to use it yourself.

Aaron is mocking the OP. I get that even if you don't. And the OP himself is trying to hide behind the CDZ so he can troll people. As he just did. He thinks it gives him "immunity" or some shit.

Trolling, no. Asking an actual question about an issue. Asking, politely, for those on the anti gun side to explain the consequences of their belief......

Wanting gun control does not mean you want to see women raped, come on now.

It is an end result. The best tool for women to use against male criminals are guns.... those who want to make guns more difficult to own, up to and including banning them, make it less likely that women who want a gun for self defense will be able to get one. That means their best tool to stop a rape will no longer be available....hence, one of the consequences of their policies will be more rapes. Do they understand this, and do they care?

The flaw in your premise is the ass-sumption that rape, and with it gunplay, are inevitable, and therefore one must counteract the other. In other words you address the symptom rather than the disease.

It's the same puerile argument as "the answer to guns is more guns" --- for that matter a mass shooting is the same psychological dynamic as rape: a power trip. THAT is where we start. Because you don't put out a fire by dousing it in gasoline.

When you have a fire already burning.....a woman being raped....you put it out first, then deal with the psychological issues of the pyromaniac....

You don't think that rape is inevitable as part of the human condition? Really?

And apparently more guns do answer the question of how you stop a bad guy with a gun....more guns.....as 1.1 million Americans who use their guns to stop crime would tell you....

 

[Pogo]

Ah, so you didn't recognize sarcasm while claiming to use it yourself.

Aaron is mocking the OP. I get that even if you don't. And the OP himself is trying to hide behind the CDZ so he can troll people. As he just did. He thinks it gives him "immunity" or some shit.

Trolling, no. Asking an actual question about an issue. Asking, politely, for those on the anti gun side to explain the consequences of their belief......

Wanting gun control does not mean you want to see women raped, come on now.

It is an end result. The best tool for women to use against male criminals are guns.... those who want to make guns more difficult to own, up to and including banning them, make it less likely that women who want a gun for self defense will be able to get one. That means their best tool to stop a rape will no longer be available....hence, one of the consequences of their policies will be more rapes. Do they understand this, and do they care?

The flaw in your premise is the ass-sumption that rape, and with it gunplay, are inevitable, and therefore one must counteract the other. In other words you address the symptom rather than the disease.

It's the same puerile argument as "the answer to guns is more guns" --- for that matter a mass shooting is the same psychological dynamic as rape: a power trip. THAT is where we start. Because you don't put out a fire by dousing it in gasoline.

When you have a fire already burning.....a woman being raped....you put it out first, then deal with the psychological issues of the pyromaniac....

You don't think that rape is inevitable as part of the human condition? Really?

No, I don't. I've never even considered raping anyone. Have you?

 

[2aguy]

Trolling, no. Asking an actual question about an issue. Asking, politely, for those on the anti gun side to explain the consequences of their belief......

Wanting gun control does not mean you want to see women raped, come on now.

It is an end result. The best tool for women to use against male criminals are guns.... those who want to make guns more difficult to own, up to and including banning them, make it less likely that women who want a gun for self defense will be able to get one. That means their best tool to stop a rape will no longer be available....hence, one of the consequences of their policies will be more rapes. Do they understand this, and do they care?

The flaw in your premise is the ass-sumption that rape, and with it gunplay, are inevitable, and therefore one must counteract the other. In other words you address the symptom rather than the disease.

It's the same puerile argument as "the answer to guns is more guns" --- for that matter a mass shooting is the same psychological dynamic as rape: a power trip. THAT is where we start. Because you don't put out a fire by dousing it in gasoline.

When you have a fire already burning.....a woman being raped....you put it out first, then deal with the psychological issues of the pyromaniac....

You don't think that rape is inevitable as part of the human condition? Really?

No, I don't. I've never even considered raping anyone. Have you?

Nope....but we aren't the totality of "humanity' are we?

 

[Pogo]

Wanting gun control does not mean you want to see women raped, come on now.

It is an end result. The best tool for women to use against male criminals are guns.... those who want to make guns more difficult to own, up to and including banning them, make it less likely that women who want a gun for self defense will be able to get one. That means their best tool to stop a rape will no longer be available....hence, one of the consequences of their policies will be more rapes. Do they understand this, and do they care?

The flaw in your premise is the ass-sumption that rape, and with it gunplay, are inevitable, and therefore one must counteract the other. In other words you address the symptom rather than the disease.

It's the same puerile argument as "the answer to guns is more guns" --- for that matter a mass shooting is the same psychological dynamic as rape: a power trip. THAT is where we start. Because you don't put out a fire by dousing it in gasoline.

When you have a fire already burning.....a woman being raped....you put it out first, then deal with the psychological issues of the pyromaniac....

You don't think that rape is inevitable as part of the human condition? Really?

No, I don't. I've never even considered raping anyone. Have you?

Nope....but we aren't the totality of "humanity' are we?

Nope... but we are part of it aren't we?

Do you think that even though you never raped, it's "inevitable" that in time you will?

This line of thought reminds me of the old Heavy Car argument. The idea that the bigger and bulkier a vehicle is, the "safer" it is based on testing. Ignoring the fact that those tests are not "safety" tests, but CRASH tests, which ass-sumes the crash is, again, inevitable. And again the premise is flawed because the crash (the rape) was not inevitable, and in fact the bigger bulkier vehicle is *LESS* able to avoid that crash in the first place so it's at best a self-fulfilling prophecy.

See what I did there?

 

[2aguy]

It is an end result. The best tool for women to use against male criminals are guns.... those who want to make guns more difficult to own, up to and including banning them, make it less likely that women who want a gun for self defense will be able to get one. That means their best tool to stop a rape will no longer be available....hence, one of the consequences of their policies will be more rapes. Do they understand this, and do they care?

The flaw in your premise is the ass-sumption that rape, and with it gunplay, are inevitable, and therefore one must counteract the other. In other words you address the symptom rather than the disease.

It's the same puerile argument as "the answer to guns is more guns" --- for that matter a mass shooting is the same psychological dynamic as rape: a power trip. THAT is where we start. Because you don't put out a fire by dousing it in gasoline.

When you have a fire already burning.....a woman being raped....you put it out first, then deal with the psychological issues of the pyromaniac....

You don't think that rape is inevitable as part of the human condition? Really?

No, I don't. I've never even considered raping anyone. Have you?

Nope....but we aren't the totality of "humanity' are we?

Nope... but we are part of it aren't we?

Do you think that even though you never raped, it's "inevitable" that in time you will?

This line of thought reminds me of the old Heavy Car argument. The idea that the bigger and bulkier a vehicle is, the "safer" it is based on testing. Ignoring the fact that those tests are not "safety" tests, but CRASH tests, which ass-sumes the crash is, again, inevitable. And again the premise is flawed because the crash (the rape) was not inevitable, and in fact the bigger bulkier vehicle is *LESS* able to avoid that crash in the first place so it's at best a self-fulfilling prophecy.

See what I did there?

Nope, I will never rape. That doesn't rule out all the other males, or in fact, females in this country and around the world....

So....we can eliminate rape, and obviously other violent crimes from the human experience..good to know. Get back to me when that is achieved.

 

[DandyDonovan]

It is an end result. The best tool for women to use against male criminals are guns.... those who want to make guns more difficult to own, up to and including banning them, make it less likely that women who want a gun for self defense will be able to get one. That means their best tool to stop a rape will no longer be available....hence, one of the consequences of their policies will be more rapes. Do they understand this, and do they care?

The flaw in your premise is the ass-sumption that rape, and with it gunplay, are inevitable, and therefore one must counteract the other. In other words you address the symptom rather than the disease.

It's the same puerile argument as "the answer to guns is more guns" --- for that matter a mass shooting is the same psychological dynamic as rape: a power trip. THAT is where we start. Because you don't put out a fire by dousing it in gasoline.

When you have a fire already burning.....a woman being raped....you put it out first, then deal with the psychological issues of the pyromaniac....

You don't think that rape is inevitable as part of the human condition? Really?

No, I don't. I've never even considered raping anyone. Have you?

Nope....but we aren't the totality of "humanity' are we?

Nope... but we are part of it aren't we?

Do you think that even though you never raped, it's "inevitable" that in time you will?

This line of thought reminds me of the old Heavy Car argument. The idea that the bigger and bulkier a vehicle is, the "safer" it is based on testing. Ignoring the fact that those tests are not "safety" tests, but CRASH tests, which ass-sumes the crash is, again, inevitable. And again the premise is flawed because the crash (the rape) was not inevitable, and in fact the bigger bulkier vehicle is *LESS* able to avoid that crash in the first place so it's at best a self-fulfilling prophecy.

See what I did there?

You are arguing silliness. I don't murder either, but it's obvious that murder is in the human condition.

The difference is some of us , like you and I for example, and 2A can control our base urges.

Want proof of that? Can you seriously say you've never thought in your life "I'd like to kill that person?" I doubt you can. The difference is , you didn't do it. You controlled yourself.

 

[Pilot1]

Considering the sheer physical power differences between men and women, any woman who has not had some degree of fight training and does not carry a firearm is bugfuck crazy.

Yes, the chances of your being attacked can be measured in degrees of the astronomical, depending upon where you live, but it only takes one time when you're unprepared.

^^^^^^This. And many women are now legally arming themselves, and getting the necessary training to be SAFE, and proficient with a firearm. However, many still aren't, but that is a PERSONAL choice. I have no problem either way, but if it were me, and I was female, I'd carry 24/7, and NOT allow myself to be a victim. It is like an insurance policy. Nobody wants to have to use their insurance, but it is nice knowing you have it.