Three Dutch commandos in urban warfare training shot outside Indianapolis hotel, one has died.

[Burgermeister]

Doesn't take long for the Dems to ruin a city.

Have you spent time in Holland? The people are very nice.

Yeah but those shoes..

 

[Curried Goats]

Your answer was a debate fallacy referred to as "appeal to authority". Think better.

You're too stupid to realize fallacies require context. An appeal to authority is only a fallacy in the context that the authority you're appealing to is not an objective arbiter. They may be but simply referring to them as authorities on the matter does not prove your case.

I'll give you an example. If I argue global warming is real and you ask me to prove it. Well if I come back say so and so climatologist with a doctorate from Harvard, says it's real so its real, that is an appeal to authority. So and so Climatologist with a doctorate from Harvard might be right, but his science would have to prove that. Him being a climatologist with a doctorate from Harvard isn't sufficient evidence to tell us whether global warming is real.

The Supreme Court however is the final arbiter on whether or not something is unconstitutional. Differing to their ruling is simply stating the law is it stands. In this context an appeal to an actual authority with the power to determine the outcome of the question at hand is not a fallacy.

 

[martybegan]

I'm explaining to you why your question is stupid and encouraging you, albeit with negative reinforcement, to ask a better one.

Do you want to know how I feel about gun ownership? Is that it? Well that's nuanced. I'm a gun owner. I also don't mind all that much laws that restrict easy access to guns. Especially among violent individuals, including people who make online threats. I think those should be prosecuted a lot more vigorously and I don't mind if any of these laws inconvenience gun owners.

Yes. I believe that is the intent. So what? That has nothing at all to do with my point that blue cities still contain lots of guns, regardless of the legal restrictions and Republicans who believe they're the only ones with firearms can fuck around and find out.

The point is that despite all the laws blue pols put in place to make it as difficult as possible for law abiding people to get guns, any idiot can go buy one illegally in a matter of hours.

Those laws are there to make getting a gun so onerous that people don't even try. It's not about safety, it's about control.

and the only gun you could probably operate safely is a water pistol, and even then I would have my doubts.

 

[Curried Goats]

The point is that despite all the laws blue pols put in place to make it as difficult as possible for law abiding people to get guns, any idiot can go buy one illegally in a matter of hours.

Who is this a point to? Who was arguing otherwise?

Those laws are there to make getting a gun so onerous that people don't even try. It's not about safety, it's about control.

The control is an effort towards safety. Gun control helps in reducing gun violence as evidence in European and Asian countries have proven. It's less effective when guns are easily available in neighboring states and no real effort is given to combating poverty, homelessness, and access to quality healthcare and education.

and the only gun you could probably operate safely is a water pistol, and even then I would have my doubts.

That's because you're a cosplayer under the delusion that your public ruminations on your fantasies reflect strong arguments. You might as well be a fucking nerd throwing packets of salt at me and screaming lightening bolt!




Dilly! Dilly!

 

[Orangecat]

You're too stupid to realize fallacies require context. An appeal to authority is only a fallacy in the context that the authority you're appealing to is not an objective arbiter. They may be but simply referring to them as authorities on the matter does not prove your case.

I'll give you an example. If I argue global warming is real and you ask me to prove it. Well if I come back say so and so climatologist with a doctorate from Harvard, says it's real so its real, that is an appeal to authority. So and so Climatologist with a doctorate from Harvard might be right, but his science would have to prove that. Him being a climatologist with a doctorate from Harvard isn't sufficient evidence to tell us whether global warming is real.

The Supreme Court however is the final arbiter on whether or not something is unconstitutional. Differing to their ruling is simply stating the law is it stands. In this context an appeal to an actual authority with the power to determine the outcome of the question at hand is not a fallacy.

Stop squirming, child. You're only embarrassing yourself. Have an adult explain the word "infringe" to your dumb ass.

 

[Curried Goats]

Stop squirming, child. You're only embarrassing yourself. Have an adult explain the word "infringe" to your dumb ass.

You're an idiot. Clearly. Referring to the law to answer a question of legality is not a fallacy.

And it's you who's apparently so fucking stupid that you don't know "infringe" is a verb and my question was in regard to a noun, i.e. what is being "infringed" upon. Are you talking about your legal rights? In that case you'll find your answer in the law. If you don't believe the answer to what is or isn't legal can be found in our laws, then I don't really know what else to tell you because you're a moron.

 

[Orangecat]

You're an idiot. Clearly. Referring to the law to answer a question of legality is not a fallacy.

You're a spineless pussy who falls back on debate fallacies when asked for an opinion. Grow a spine, coward.

 

[Curried Goats]

You're a spineless pussy who falls back on debate fallacies when asked for an opinion. Grow a spine, coward.

I'll happily give my opinion on any number of topics but what is or isn't illegal isn't something I have an opinion on because that question has an objective answer. If you want my opinion on what I feel gun laws should be I've already given it. I'm a gun owner who doesn't have a problem with individual ownership nor do I have an issue with the laws that try to limit gun ownership especially among violent individuals, including individuals who make threats online. I think anyone making threats, either verbally or online should have their access to firearms restricted, I think all firearms should be registered and all sales, including private ones, should require background checks. I don't give a flying fuck about inconvenience to gun owners.

 

[Orangecat]

I'll happily give my opinion on any number of topics but what is or isn't illegal isn't something I have an opinion on because that question has an objective answer. If you want my opinion on what I feel gun laws should be I've already given it. I'm a gun owner who doesn't have a problem with individual ownership nor do I have an issue with the laws that try to limit gun ownership especially among violent individuals, including individuals who make threats online. I think anyone making threats, either verbally or online should have their access to firearms restricted, I think all firearms should be registered and all sales, including private ones, should require background checks. I don't give a flying fuck about inconvenience to gun owners.

 

[Curried Goats]

You consoling yourself because you can't manage a response?

 

[Orangecat]

You consoling yourself because you can't manage a response?

 

[Curried Goats]

Let me know if you need a tissue.

 

[BlackSand]

Gun control helps in reducing gun violence as evidence in European and Asian countries have proven.

.

Dutch Commandos - 0
Indianapolis Thugs - 1

When is the rematch?

. ​

 

[Curried Goats]

.

Dutch Commandos - 0
Indianapolis Thugs - 1

When is the rematch?

. ​

Why are you asking me?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Black teens are running wild in Indianapolis.

Huge problem

 

[martybegan]

Who is this a point to? Who was arguing otherwise?

The control is an effort towards safety. Gun control helps in reducing gun violence as evidence in European and Asian countries have proven. It's less effective when guns are easily available in neighboring states and no real effort is given to combating poverty, homelessness, and access to quality healthcare and education.

That's because you're a cosplayer under the delusion that your public ruminations on your fantasies reflect strong arguments. You might as well be a fucking nerd throwing packets of salt at me and screaming lightening bolt!




Dilly! Dilly!

"safety" is the excuse, the real reason is they are stupid enough to believe banning guns will eliminate gun crime. Meanwhile those who do break existing laws get put in the revolving door justice system.

Thanks for the video, haven't seen that one in a while.

 

[Orangecat]

Let me know if you need a tissue.

Worry about your own tampon, kid.

 

[Curried Goats]

"safety" is the excuse, the real reason is they are stupid enough to believe banning guns will eliminate gun crime. Meanwhile those who do break existing laws get put in the revolving door justice system.

Thanks for the video, haven't seen that one in a while.

"They" only believe gun control and strong social safety nets reduces gun violence because "they" believe in science and empirical evidence.

 

[BlackSand]

Why are you asking me?

.

Well, you were talking about the European model working so well ... And that is not reflected in the actual score.
I am willing to give them another shot at it ... Figuratively speaking anyway.

.​

 

[Curried Goats]

Worry about your own tampon, kid.

Eww. Cosplaying and fantasizing about children and tampons is some real groomer shit.