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

[Pogo]

Hollywood also glamorizes smoking.

It's bad for kids.

Think of the CHILDREN!!

BAN ALL SMOKING IN MOVIES.

They already did that. And nobody had to "ban" it.
Again, read my first post. WE made it "uncool" and Hollyweird had no choice but to follow suit.

If a hero-character who smokes would sell ---- they'd be selling it. But it doesn't.
Hollyweird didn't do that ---- WE did.

 

[iceberg]

The Hollywood films that make it "COOL" to murder are responsible for gun violence in America, and these films should be banned.

DC should censor Hollywood.

We should only have movies about transgendered children coping with life.

Jason Borne
The Taken films
Tarantino
The Marvel and DC Comics Superhero movies

These films STYLIZE GUN VIOLENCE and rarely show the aftermath and consequences.

They are showing kids at an early age that gun violence is a quick solution for any problems.

if Liberals want to stop gun violence, start with mental health issues and Hollywood.

The fork doesn't make you fat. It's the shit on the end of the fork that the fat ass is shoving down their pie hole.

You're actually approaching the right idea here. Culture in general --- not just movies but overall culture, from a child's earliest toys and cartoons and comic books, through his (it's always a he, yuge clue) endless shoot-em-up TV shows, through his video games, right down to his everyday linguistic euphemisms, set up and reinforce that value that "guns is power".

Whelp --- when that guy for whatever reason gets himself into a hole of powerlessness, he's likely to turn to what his (it's always a he) culture has told him from birth. Ain't rocket surgery.

"Banning" however has never worked for anything. That ain't how you change culture.

We used to have a culture of smoking. Recently enough to remember. That too was pushed and reinforced by movies, and TV, and even Hallowe'en candies. We didn't suppress that by "banning" it. We suppressed it by making it uncool.

So here we have a culture of gun violence. Do the math.

you look back, kids have always played with toy guns. hell i can't remember how many cap guns i destroyed as a kid. although it was usually a lot more fun to pop an entire roll of caps with a brick.

westerns of the 50s and 60s - guns.
war movies before that - guns.

yet we didn't have the violence problems that we do today so it can't just be seeing guns on tv and the movies makes kids psychotic. i heard this a TON in my catholic studies as i was one of the few who played D&D and had to tell far too many people i had no desire to crawl around in a new york sewer looking for rats nor behead someone with a vorpal blade.

so whatever the root cause is - it's not just one. it's more like a perfect storm of events and pop culture mood of hate that is setting off a lot of this. the incident in plano was a marital spat where friends were over for football and were caught in the crossfire of an idiot. i doubt it was only gunsmoke as a kid that made him do that.

"Always"?
According to what I've read this shooter was 64 years old. That would make him born in 1952 or '53 and ergo a young and impressionable child when this splattered all over TV, which was considered an electronic babysitter:

​

His older brother born ten years earlier didn't have that kind of propaganda instrument. He did eventually, but by the time TV got widespread he was old enough to not be so impressionable.

Of course that's just one of the factors I listed. After that commercial, and maybe another one for GI Joe ran, he'd be returned to his program about shooting Indians or bank robbers. Then he'd go to his comic books and read about the invasion of Gongontula and how he was vanquished with a death ray gun. Then when he got older his TV tastes would mature to shows about cops shooting still-more 'bad guys' or Star Trek shooting Klingons, and then older still he could go to movies about the Mafia. And on the way home he might have stopped and played a video game shooting down "enemy ships".

​

Indoctrination takes time. And it never gives up.

The other half of this is the masculinity aspect. Mass shooters are not out for 'murder' per se -- they're out for power. So again, when they dig themselves into whatever hole of powerlessness they believe themselves to be in, they're going to turn to what their indoctrination has always told them, from the earliest most impressionable age, is the way out.

great. then if this *is* what made him go nuts, why is no one else his age buggin out? he's the 2nd oldest mass killer on record i believe i read. if you're "theory" is correct then we'd have a lot of 'em running around.

or you're picking on "always" and digging into a word to bypass valid discussion and if so, check please.

 

[HappyJoy]

I think Hollywood should take a closer look at the movies they make. Glorifying gun violence in this day and age where mass shootings are becoming more common it makes sense to take a second look at how this influences our gun nut culture.

The NRA: The only thing that stops a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.

What a load of Hollywood horseshit is that?

Indeed the very phrase "a good guy with a gun" would be laughable on its face if not for the conditioning set up for Almighty Gun culture I described in post 5. It's in no way limited to movies though. It's there from the child's earliest toys and comic books and GI Joe dolls. It's all over his video games. It's literally all over the TV dial, literally 24/7/365. If the objective were to sell Gun Culture it could hardly have thought of anything more than it's already pervaded.

It's even in the language: one's "bullet point" is either "on target" or else one has to "bite the bullet" when one "comes under fire", lest one's "trigger happy" "shoot from the hip" "parting shot" get "shot down" at which point one can "stick to your guns". This is literally indoctrinated from birth and from every turn. These are my observations but "don't shoot the messenger".

They're (generally) not making those movies, and TV shows, and video games, and comics, and GI Joe dolls, and toy six-shooters, for the purpose of selling a Gun Culture. They're just doing it because it sells. Perhaps then what's required is to teach a vulnerable population the basics of when they're being played for profit. That would go a long way.

Good points. However those things you mentioned are also in other countries as well. Our tv shows, movies, toys and video games are available across Europe and beyond. What they don't have is the availability of all these firearms and I think it could be a combination of the two.

I think we have a generalized culture of violence underlying it all, that feeds it, which other cultures don't share. The idea of subjugating nature, "Manifest Destiny" and the whole "rugged individual frontier" crap.

Any of us can literally turn on the TV, the most effective propaganda device ever invented, and within a few minutes find somebody somewhere getting shot, any time of any day or night. I'm not sure that's the case in other places. And it belies a massive mental illness in terms of cultural values that we celebrate and glorify and idolize Death.

I think certainly our country's founding and violent history is embedded in our DNA so to speak. Our country truly was raised on guns where as most of the world was for the most part established before they came along.

Culturally we do need a shift, however I don't want to see government censorship against first amendment rights. It should be voluntary, you know...like the way Stallone stopped making crappy Rocky movies. Eventually he stopped, it just takes some time.

 

[Pogo]

The Hollywood films that make it "COOL" to murder are responsible for gun violence in America, and these films should be banned.

DC should censor Hollywood.

We should only have movies about transgendered children coping with life.

Jason Borne
The Taken films
Tarantino
The Marvel and DC Comics Superhero movies

These films STYLIZE GUN VIOLENCE and rarely show the aftermath and consequences.

They are showing kids at an early age that gun violence is a quick solution for any problems.

if Liberals want to stop gun violence, start with mental health issues and Hollywood.

The fork doesn't make you fat. It's the shit on the end of the fork that the fat ass is shoving down their pie hole.

You're actually approaching the right idea here. Culture in general --- not just movies but overall culture, from a child's earliest toys and cartoons and comic books, through his (it's always a he, yuge clue) endless shoot-em-up TV shows, through his video games, right down to his everyday linguistic euphemisms, set up and reinforce that value that "guns is power".

Whelp --- when that guy for whatever reason gets himself into a hole of powerlessness, he's likely to turn to what his (it's always a he) culture has told him from birth. Ain't rocket surgery.

"Banning" however has never worked for anything. That ain't how you change culture.

We used to have a culture of smoking. Recently enough to remember. That too was pushed and reinforced by movies, and TV, and even Hallowe'en candies. We didn't suppress that by "banning" it. We suppressed it by making it uncool.

So here we have a culture of gun violence. Do the math.

you look back, kids have always played with toy guns. hell i can't remember how many cap guns i destroyed as a kid. although it was usually a lot more fun to pop an entire roll of caps with a brick.

westerns of the 50s and 60s - guns.
war movies before that - guns.

yet we didn't have the violence problems that we do today so it can't just be seeing guns on tv and the movies makes kids psychotic. i heard this a TON in my catholic studies as i was one of the few who played D&D and had to tell far too many people i had no desire to crawl around in a new york sewer looking for rats nor behead someone with a vorpal blade.

so whatever the root cause is - it's not just one. it's more like a perfect storm of events and pop culture mood of hate that is setting off a lot of this. the incident in plano was a marital spat where friends were over for football and were caught in the crossfire of an idiot. i doubt it was only gunsmoke as a kid that made him do that.

"Always"?
According to what I've read this shooter was 64 years old. That would make him born in 1952 or '53 and ergo a young and impressionable child when this splattered all over TV, which was considered an electronic babysitter:

​

His older brother born ten years earlier didn't have that kind of propaganda instrument. He did eventually, but by the time TV got widespread he was old enough to not be so impressionable.

Of course that's just one of the factors I listed. After that commercial, and maybe another one for GI Joe ran, he'd be returned to his program about shooting Indians or bank robbers. Then he'd go to his comic books and read about the invasion of Gongontula and how he was vanquished with a death ray gun. Then when he got older his TV tastes would mature to shows about cops shooting still-more 'bad guys' or Star Trek shooting Klingons, and then older still he could go to movies about the Mafia. And on the way home he might have stopped and played a video game shooting down "enemy ships".

​

Indoctrination takes time. And it never gives up.

The other half of this is the masculinity aspect. Mass shooters are not out for 'murder' per se -- they're out for power. So again, when they dig themselves into whatever hole of powerlessness they believe themselves to be in, they're going to turn to what their indoctrination has always told them, from the earliest most impressionable age, is the way out.

great. then if this *is* what made him go nuts, why is no one else his age buggin out? he's the 2nd oldest mass killer on record i believe i read. if you're "theory" is correct then we'd have a lot of 'em running around.

or you're picking on "always" and digging into a word to bypass valid discussion and if so, check please.

Your use of "always" suggests that the correlation has "always" been there. I pointed out that the TV factor, as well as myriad others but that's the prime example --- was not at all "always" there. It had a measurable origin. So do movies, so do video games.

So I don't accept that "kids have always played with guns", I don't think that's an accurate view at all.

And we do have a lot of 'em running around. Hell, when I joined this site it was right after two notable shootings and right before two more, all within a space of three weeks. One of them was Newtown.

 

[iceberg]

The Hollywood films that make it "COOL" to murder are responsible for gun violence in America, and these films should be banned.

DC should censor Hollywood.

We should only have movies about transgendered children coping with life.

Jason Borne
The Taken films
Tarantino
The Marvel and DC Comics Superhero movies

These films STYLIZE GUN VIOLENCE and rarely show the aftermath and consequences.

They are showing kids at an early age that gun violence is a quick solution for any problems.

if Liberals want to stop gun violence, start with mental health issues and Hollywood.

The fork doesn't make you fat. It's the shit on the end of the fork that the fat ass is shoving down their pie hole.

You're actually approaching the right idea here. Culture in general --- not just movies but overall culture, from a child's earliest toys and cartoons and comic books, through his (it's always a he, yuge clue) endless shoot-em-up TV shows, through his video games, right down to his everyday linguistic euphemisms, set up and reinforce that value that "guns is power".

Whelp --- when that guy for whatever reason gets himself into a hole of powerlessness, he's likely to turn to what his (it's always a he) culture has told him from birth. Ain't rocket surgery.

"Banning" however has never worked for anything. That ain't how you change culture.

We used to have a culture of smoking. Recently enough to remember. That too was pushed and reinforced by movies, and TV, and even Hallowe'en candies. We didn't suppress that by "banning" it. We suppressed it by making it uncool.

So here we have a culture of gun violence. Do the math.

you look back, kids have always played with toy guns. hell i can't remember how many cap guns i destroyed as a kid. although it was usually a lot more fun to pop an entire roll of caps with a brick.

westerns of the 50s and 60s - guns.
war movies before that - guns.

yet we didn't have the violence problems that we do today so it can't just be seeing guns on tv and the movies makes kids psychotic. i heard this a TON in my catholic studies as i was one of the few who played D&D and had to tell far too many people i had no desire to crawl around in a new york sewer looking for rats nor behead someone with a vorpal blade.

so whatever the root cause is - it's not just one. it's more like a perfect storm of events and pop culture mood of hate that is setting off a lot of this. the incident in plano was a marital spat where friends were over for football and were caught in the crossfire of an idiot. i doubt it was only gunsmoke as a kid that made him do that.

"Always"?
According to what I've read this shooter was 64 years old. That would make him born in 1952 or '53 and ergo a young and impressionable child when this splattered all over TV, which was considered an electronic babysitter:

​

His older brother born ten years earlier didn't have that kind of propaganda instrument. He did eventually, but by the time TV got widespread he was old enough to not be so impressionable.

Of course that's just one of the factors I listed. After that commercial, and maybe another one for GI Joe ran, he'd be returned to his program about shooting Indians or bank robbers. Then he'd go to his comic books and read about the invasion of Gongontula and how he was vanquished with a death ray gun. Then when he got older his TV tastes would mature to shows about cops shooting still-more 'bad guys' or Star Trek shooting Klingons, and then older still he could go to movies about the Mafia. And on the way home he might have stopped and played a video game shooting down "enemy ships".

​

Indoctrination takes time. And it never gives up.

The other half of this is the masculinity aspect. Mass shooters are not out for 'murder' per se -- they're out for power. So again, when they dig themselves into whatever hole of powerlessness they believe themselves to be in, they're going to turn to what their indoctrination has always told them, from the earliest most impressionable age, is the way out.

great. then if this *is* what made him go nuts, why is no one else his age buggin out? he's the 2nd oldest mass killer on record i believe i read. if you're "theory" is correct then we'd have a lot of 'em running around.

or you're picking on "always" and digging into a word to bypass valid discussion and if so, check please.

Your use of "always" suggests that the correlation has "always" been there. I pointed out that the TV factor, as well as myriad others but that's the prime example --- was not at all "always" there. It had a measurable origin. So do movies, so do video games.

So I don't accept that "kids have always played with guns", I don't think that's an accurate view at all.

And we do have a lot of 'em running around. Hell, when I joined this site it was right after two notable shootings and right before two more, all within a space of three weeks. One of them was Newtown.

like i said - we can spend a month going over the definition of always but i'm not going to lose sight of the argument at hand to debate the use of a word.

have fun with it.

 

[Pogo]

You're actually approaching the right idea here. Culture in general --- not just movies but overall culture, from a child's earliest toys and cartoons and comic books, through his (it's always a he, yuge clue) endless shoot-em-up TV shows, through his video games, right down to his everyday linguistic euphemisms, set up and reinforce that value that "guns is power".

Whelp --- when that guy for whatever reason gets himself into a hole of powerlessness, he's likely to turn to what his (it's always a he) culture has told him from birth. Ain't rocket surgery.

"Banning" however has never worked for anything. That ain't how you change culture.

We used to have a culture of smoking. Recently enough to remember. That too was pushed and reinforced by movies, and TV, and even Hallowe'en candies. We didn't suppress that by "banning" it. We suppressed it by making it uncool.

So here we have a culture of gun violence. Do the math.

you look back, kids have always played with toy guns. hell i can't remember how many cap guns i destroyed as a kid. although it was usually a lot more fun to pop an entire roll of caps with a brick.

westerns of the 50s and 60s - guns.
war movies before that - guns.

yet we didn't have the violence problems that we do today so it can't just be seeing guns on tv and the movies makes kids psychotic. i heard this a TON in my catholic studies as i was one of the few who played D&D and had to tell far too many people i had no desire to crawl around in a new york sewer looking for rats nor behead someone with a vorpal blade.

so whatever the root cause is - it's not just one. it's more like a perfect storm of events and pop culture mood of hate that is setting off a lot of this. the incident in plano was a marital spat where friends were over for football and were caught in the crossfire of an idiot. i doubt it was only gunsmoke as a kid that made him do that.

"Always"?
According to what I've read this shooter was 64 years old. That would make him born in 1952 or '53 and ergo a young and impressionable child when this splattered all over TV, which was considered an electronic babysitter:

​

His older brother born ten years earlier didn't have that kind of propaganda instrument. He did eventually, but by the time TV got widespread he was old enough to not be so impressionable.

Of course that's just one of the factors I listed. After that commercial, and maybe another one for GI Joe ran, he'd be returned to his program about shooting Indians or bank robbers. Then he'd go to his comic books and read about the invasion of Gongontula and how he was vanquished with a death ray gun. Then when he got older his TV tastes would mature to shows about cops shooting still-more 'bad guys' or Star Trek shooting Klingons, and then older still he could go to movies about the Mafia. And on the way home he might have stopped and played a video game shooting down "enemy ships".

​

Indoctrination takes time. And it never gives up.

The other half of this is the masculinity aspect. Mass shooters are not out for 'murder' per se -- they're out for power. So again, when they dig themselves into whatever hole of powerlessness they believe themselves to be in, they're going to turn to what their indoctrination has always told them, from the earliest most impressionable age, is the way out.

great. then if this *is* what made him go nuts, why is no one else his age buggin out? he's the 2nd oldest mass killer on record i believe i read. if you're "theory" is correct then we'd have a lot of 'em running around.

or you're picking on "always" and digging into a word to bypass valid discussion and if so, check please.

Your use of "always" suggests that the correlation has "always" been there. I pointed out that the TV factor, as well as myriad others but that's the prime example --- was not at all "always" there. It had a measurable origin. So do movies, so do video games.

So I don't accept that "kids have always played with guns", I don't think that's an accurate view at all.

And we do have a lot of 'em running around. Hell, when I joined this site it was right after two notable shootings and right before two more, all within a space of three weeks. One of them was Newtown.

like i said - we can spend a month going over the definition of always but i'm not going to lose sight of the argument at hand to debate the use of a word.

have fun with it.

So you want a definition to be elastic? So that you can stretch it after the fact?
That's just dishonest.

 

[iceberg]

you look back, kids have always played with toy guns. hell i can't remember how many cap guns i destroyed as a kid. although it was usually a lot more fun to pop an entire roll of caps with a brick.

westerns of the 50s and 60s - guns.
war movies before that - guns.

yet we didn't have the violence problems that we do today so it can't just be seeing guns on tv and the movies makes kids psychotic. i heard this a TON in my catholic studies as i was one of the few who played D&D and had to tell far too many people i had no desire to crawl around in a new york sewer looking for rats nor behead someone with a vorpal blade.

so whatever the root cause is - it's not just one. it's more like a perfect storm of events and pop culture mood of hate that is setting off a lot of this. the incident in plano was a marital spat where friends were over for football and were caught in the crossfire of an idiot. i doubt it was only gunsmoke as a kid that made him do that.

"Always"?
According to what I've read this shooter was 64 years old. That would make him born in 1952 or '53 and ergo a young and impressionable child when this splattered all over TV, which was considered an electronic babysitter:

​

His older brother born ten years earlier didn't have that kind of propaganda instrument. He did eventually, but by the time TV got widespread he was old enough to not be so impressionable.

Of course that's just one of the factors I listed. After that commercial, and maybe another one for GI Joe ran, he'd be returned to his program about shooting Indians or bank robbers. Then he'd go to his comic books and read about the invasion of Gongontula and how he was vanquished with a death ray gun. Then when he got older his TV tastes would mature to shows about cops shooting still-more 'bad guys' or Star Trek shooting Klingons, and then older still he could go to movies about the Mafia. And on the way home he might have stopped and played a video game shooting down "enemy ships".

​

Indoctrination takes time. And it never gives up.

The other half of this is the masculinity aspect. Mass shooters are not out for 'murder' per se -- they're out for power. So again, when they dig themselves into whatever hole of powerlessness they believe themselves to be in, they're going to turn to what their indoctrination has always told them, from the earliest most impressionable age, is the way out.

great. then if this *is* what made him go nuts, why is no one else his age buggin out? he's the 2nd oldest mass killer on record i believe i read. if you're "theory" is correct then we'd have a lot of 'em running around.

or you're picking on "always" and digging into a word to bypass valid discussion and if so, check please.

Your use of "always" suggests that the correlation has "always" been there. I pointed out that the TV factor, as well as myriad others but that's the prime example --- was not at all "always" there. It had a measurable origin. So do movies, so do video games.

So I don't accept that "kids have always played with guns", I don't think that's an accurate view at all.

And we do have a lot of 'em running around. Hell, when I joined this site it was right after two notable shootings and right before two more, all within a space of three weeks. One of them was Newtown.

like i said - we can spend a month going over the definition of always but i'm not going to lose sight of the argument at hand to debate the use of a word.

have fun with it.

So you want a definition to be elastic? So that you can stretch it after the fact?
That's just dishonest.

no. you and i both know the context in which i was talking. you choose to take me 100% literal and that's fine. if i had a stick up my ass i'd do the same and have done so in the past. over time i remove the stick and just avoid stupid conversations.

if you think i'm trying to set you up for something or pull a bait and switch, i can't stop you so i won't bother trying.

have a nice day.

 

[kwc57]

The Hollywood films that make it "COOL" to murder are responsible for gun violence in America, and these films should be banned.

DC should censor Hollywood.

We should only have movies about transgendered children coping with life.



Jason Borne
The Taken films
Tarantino
The Marvel and DC Comics Superhero movies




These films STYLIZE GUN VIOLENCE and rarely show the aftermath and consequences.

They are showing kids at an early age that gun violence is a quick solution for any problems.

if Liberals want to stop gun violence, start with mental health issues and Hollywood.

The fork doesn't make you fat. It's the shit on the end of the fork that the fat ass is shoving down their pie hole.

After Kimmel's tear laden speech to America, I want to know if he now will ask each actor who comes on his show to pledge to never make another movie that involves guns or violence? Come on, they influence America, they have a responsibility to tome it way the hell down don't they? Look at smoking. We still have a little smoking in movies, but nothing like it was. We used to have no gay relationships in movies and they are almost mandatory now. They influence America by what they put on the screen. So if all of these actors and entertainers are so hell bent on removing guns from society, why aren't they changing what they put on the screen like they've done with other things? Perhaps.......money? So how much is Kimmel's price to dry it up and shut the hell up? I'll start the collection.

 

[Pogo]

"Always"?
According to what I've read this shooter was 64 years old. That would make him born in 1952 or '53 and ergo a young and impressionable child when this splattered all over TV, which was considered an electronic babysitter:

​

His older brother born ten years earlier didn't have that kind of propaganda instrument. He did eventually, but by the time TV got widespread he was old enough to not be so impressionable.

Of course that's just one of the factors I listed. After that commercial, and maybe another one for GI Joe ran, he'd be returned to his program about shooting Indians or bank robbers. Then he'd go to his comic books and read about the invasion of Gongontula and how he was vanquished with a death ray gun. Then when he got older his TV tastes would mature to shows about cops shooting still-more 'bad guys' or Star Trek shooting Klingons, and then older still he could go to movies about the Mafia. And on the way home he might have stopped and played a video game shooting down "enemy ships".

​

Indoctrination takes time. And it never gives up.

The other half of this is the masculinity aspect. Mass shooters are not out for 'murder' per se -- they're out for power. So again, when they dig themselves into whatever hole of powerlessness they believe themselves to be in, they're going to turn to what their indoctrination has always told them, from the earliest most impressionable age, is the way out.

great. then if this *is* what made him go nuts, why is no one else his age buggin out? he's the 2nd oldest mass killer on record i believe i read. if you're "theory" is correct then we'd have a lot of 'em running around.

or you're picking on "always" and digging into a word to bypass valid discussion and if so, check please.

Your use of "always" suggests that the correlation has "always" been there. I pointed out that the TV factor, as well as myriad others but that's the prime example --- was not at all "always" there. It had a measurable origin. So do movies, so do video games.

So I don't accept that "kids have always played with guns", I don't think that's an accurate view at all.

And we do have a lot of 'em running around. Hell, when I joined this site it was right after two notable shootings and right before two more, all within a space of three weeks. One of them was Newtown.

like i said - we can spend a month going over the definition of always but i'm not going to lose sight of the argument at hand to debate the use of a word.

have fun with it.

So you want a definition to be elastic? So that you can stretch it after the fact?
That's just dishonest.

no. you and i both know the context in which i was talking. you choose to take me 100% literal and that's fine. if i had a stick up my ass i'd do the same and have done so in the past. over time i remove the stick and just avoid stupid conversations.

if you think i'm trying to set you up for something or pull a bait and switch, i can't stop you so i won't bother trying.

have a nice day.

DO words have definitions --- or DO THEY NOT??
And if they do not --- what the **** is the point of using them at all??

Holy SHIT.

 

[iceberg]

great. then if this *is* what made him go nuts, why is no one else his age buggin out? he's the 2nd oldest mass killer on record i believe i read. if you're "theory" is correct then we'd have a lot of 'em running around.

or you're picking on "always" and digging into a word to bypass valid discussion and if so, check please.

Your use of "always" suggests that the correlation has "always" been there. I pointed out that the TV factor, as well as myriad others but that's the prime example --- was not at all "always" there. It had a measurable origin. So do movies, so do video games.

So I don't accept that "kids have always played with guns", I don't think that's an accurate view at all.

And we do have a lot of 'em running around. Hell, when I joined this site it was right after two notable shootings and right before two more, all within a space of three weeks. One of them was Newtown.

like i said - we can spend a month going over the definition of always but i'm not going to lose sight of the argument at hand to debate the use of a word.

have fun with it.

So you want a definition to be elastic? So that you can stretch it after the fact?
That's just dishonest.

no. you and i both know the context in which i was talking. you choose to take me 100% literal and that's fine. if i had a stick up my ass i'd do the same and have done so in the past. over time i remove the stick and just avoid stupid conversations.

if you think i'm trying to set you up for something or pull a bait and switch, i can't stop you so i won't bother trying.

have a nice day.

DO words have definitions --- or DO THEY NOT??
And if they do not --- what the **** is the point of using them at all??

Holy SHIT.

what is the point of talking about philosophies if all we do is debate the meaning of a word every time someone wants to push it to the extreme.

i'm not doubting what you say is true. just not for the reasons you're digging your heels in against me on this one. i do at times also so to a point, i get it. but when i see what i'm doing, i stop.

you want to take "always" as literal and of course, ALWAYS - but for me, it was that way growing up. all the kids i knew were like that but i'm SURE not ALL kids in the world were.

you win. have fun. just fucked up a good discussion but hey, shine the virtual trophy of glory up.

 

[Pogo]

Your use of "always" suggests that the correlation has "always" been there. I pointed out that the TV factor, as well as myriad others but that's the prime example --- was not at all "always" there. It had a measurable origin. So do movies, so do video games.

So I don't accept that "kids have always played with guns", I don't think that's an accurate view at all.

And we do have a lot of 'em running around. Hell, when I joined this site it was right after two notable shootings and right before two more, all within a space of three weeks. One of them was Newtown.

like i said - we can spend a month going over the definition of always but i'm not going to lose sight of the argument at hand to debate the use of a word.

have fun with it.

So you want a definition to be elastic? So that you can stretch it after the fact?
That's just dishonest.

no. you and i both know the context in which i was talking. you choose to take me 100% literal and that's fine. if i had a stick up my ass i'd do the same and have done so in the past. over time i remove the stick and just avoid stupid conversations.

if you think i'm trying to set you up for something or pull a bait and switch, i can't stop you so i won't bother trying.

have a nice day.

DO words have definitions --- or DO THEY NOT??
And if they do not --- what the **** is the point of using them at all??

Holy SHIT.

what is the point of talking about philosophies if all we do is debate the meaning of a word every time someone wants to push it to the extreme.

i'm not doubting what you say is true. just not for the reasons you're digging your heels in against me on this one. i do at times also so to a point, i get it. but when i see what i'm doing, i stop.

you want to take "always" as literal and of course, ALWAYS - but for me, it was that way growing up. all the kids i knew were like that but i'm SURE not ALL kids in the world were.

you win. have fun. just fucked up a good discussion but hey, shine the virtual trophy of glory up.

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

Yeah, no shit.

 

[iceberg]

like i said - we can spend a month going over the definition of always but i'm not going to lose sight of the argument at hand to debate the use of a word.

have fun with it.

So you want a definition to be elastic? So that you can stretch it after the fact?
That's just dishonest.

no. you and i both know the context in which i was talking. you choose to take me 100% literal and that's fine. if i had a stick up my ass i'd do the same and have done so in the past. over time i remove the stick and just avoid stupid conversations.

if you think i'm trying to set you up for something or pull a bait and switch, i can't stop you so i won't bother trying.

have a nice day.

DO words have definitions --- or DO THEY NOT??
And if they do not --- what the **** is the point of using them at all??

Holy SHIT.

what is the point of talking about philosophies if all we do is debate the meaning of a word every time someone wants to push it to the extreme.

i'm not doubting what you say is true. just not for the reasons you're digging your heels in against me on this one. i do at times also so to a point, i get it. but when i see what i'm doing, i stop.

you want to take "always" as literal and of course, ALWAYS - but for me, it was that way growing up. all the kids i knew were like that but i'm SURE not ALL kids in the world were.

you win. have fun. just fucked up a good discussion but hey, shine the virtual trophy of glory up.

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.

 

[Slade3200]

So you want a definition to be elastic? So that you can stretch it after the fact?
That's just dishonest.

no. you and i both know the context in which i was talking. you choose to take me 100% literal and that's fine. if i had a stick up my ass i'd do the same and have done so in the past. over time i remove the stick and just avoid stupid conversations.

if you think i'm trying to set you up for something or pull a bait and switch, i can't stop you so i won't bother trying.

have a nice day.

DO words have definitions --- or DO THEY NOT??
And if they do not --- what the **** is the point of using them at all??

Holy SHIT.

what is the point of talking about philosophies if all we do is debate the meaning of a word every time someone wants to push it to the extreme.

i'm not doubting what you say is true. just not for the reasons you're digging your heels in against me on this one. i do at times also so to a point, i get it. but when i see what i'm doing, i stop.

you want to take "always" as literal and of course, ALWAYS - but for me, it was that way growing up. all the kids i knew were like that but i'm SURE not ALL kids in the world were.

you win. have fun. just fucked up a good discussion but hey, shine the virtual trophy of glory up.

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.

 

[iceberg]

no. you and i both know the context in which i was talking. you choose to take me 100% literal and that's fine. if i had a stick up my ass i'd do the same and have done so in the past. over time i remove the stick and just avoid stupid conversations.

if you think i'm trying to set you up for something or pull a bait and switch, i can't stop you so i won't bother trying.

have a nice day.

DO words have definitions --- or DO THEY NOT??
And if they do not --- what the **** is the point of using them at all??

Holy SHIT.

what is the point of talking about philosophies if all we do is debate the meaning of a word every time someone wants to push it to the extreme.

i'm not doubting what you say is true. just not for the reasons you're digging your heels in against me on this one. i do at times also so to a point, i get it. but when i see what i'm doing, i stop.

you want to take "always" as literal and of course, ALWAYS - but for me, it was that way growing up. all the kids i knew were like that but i'm SURE not ALL kids in the world were.

you win. have fun. just fucked up a good discussion but hey, shine the virtual trophy of glory up.

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.

thank you.

am not trying to be a jerk or hide behind anything at all and was actually starting to have a good convo w/pogo for a change and then it just went to shit. i didn't want to get into it so i just walked away. eventually.

 

[Pogo]

no. you and i both know the context in which i was talking. you choose to take me 100% literal and that's fine. if i had a stick up my ass i'd do the same and have done so in the past. over time i remove the stick and just avoid stupid conversations.

if you think i'm trying to set you up for something or pull a bait and switch, i can't stop you so i won't bother trying.

have a nice day.

DO words have definitions --- or DO THEY NOT??
And if they do not --- what the **** is the point of using them at all??

Holy SHIT.

what is the point of talking about philosophies if all we do is debate the meaning of a word every time someone wants to push it to the extreme.

i'm not doubting what you say is true. just not for the reasons you're digging your heels in against me on this one. i do at times also so to a point, i get it. but when i see what i'm doing, i stop.

you want to take "always" as literal and of course, ALWAYS - but for me, it was that way growing up. all the kids i knew were like that but i'm SURE not ALL kids in the world were.

you win. have fun. just fucked up a good discussion but hey, shine the virtual trophy of glory up.

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. But you can''t just go "six" and then move the goalposts to "yeah six doesn't mean 'six', it could mean 'nine'".

 

[iceberg]

DO words have definitions --- or DO THEY NOT??
And if they do not --- what the **** is the point of using them at all??

Holy SHIT.

what is the point of talking about philosophies if all we do is debate the meaning of a word every time someone wants to push it to the extreme.

i'm not doubting what you say is true. just not for the reasons you're digging your heels in against me on this one. i do at times also so to a point, i get it. but when i see what i'm doing, i stop.

you want to take "always" as literal and of course, ALWAYS - but for me, it was that way growing up. all the kids i knew were like that but i'm SURE not ALL kids in the world were.

you win. have fun. just fucked up a good discussion but hey, shine the virtual trophy of glory up.

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.

where did i say i won? i clearly said you did and shine the trophy up.

i also said i was out - and sooner or later, I AM! (always)

 

[Votto]

The Hollywood films that make it "COOL" to murder are responsible for gun violence in America, and these films should be banned.

DC should censor Hollywood.

We should only have movies about transgendered children coping with life.



Jason Borne
The Taken films
Tarantino
The Marvel and DC Comics Superhero movies




These films STYLIZE GUN VIOLENCE and rarely show the aftermath and consequences.

They are showing kids at an early age that gun violence is a quick solution for any problems.

if Liberals want to stop gun violence, start with mental health issues and Hollywood.

The fork doesn't make you fat. It's the shit on the end of the fork that the fat ass is shoving down their pie hole.

I fear that if we take their ability to engage in hypocrisy their heads might explode.

And I'm not cleaning it up.

 

[Slade3200]

DO words have definitions --- or DO THEY NOT??
And if they do not --- what the **** is the point of using them at all??

Holy SHIT.

what is the point of talking about philosophies if all we do is debate the meaning of a word every time someone wants to push it to the extreme.

i'm not doubting what you say is true. just not for the reasons you're digging your heels in against me on this one. i do at times also so to a point, i get it. but when i see what i'm doing, i stop.

you want to take "always" as literal and of course, ALWAYS - but for me, it was that way growing up. all the kids i knew were like that but i'm SURE not ALL kids in the world were.

you win. have fun. just fucked up a good discussion but hey, shine the virtual trophy of glory up.

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.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Hollywood films that make it "COOL" to murder are responsible for gun violence in America, and these films should be banned.

DC should censor Hollywood.

We should only have movies about transgendered children coping with life.



Jason Borne
The Taken films
Tarantino
The Marvel and DC Comics Superhero movies




These films STYLIZE GUN VIOLENCE and rarely show the aftermath and consequences.

They are showing kids at an early age that gun violence is a quick solution for any problems.

if Liberals want to stop gun violence, start with mental health issues and Hollywood.

The fork doesn't make you fat. It's the shit on the end of the fork that the fat ass is shoving down their pie hole.

They should be named as defendants in any lawsuit against gun manufacturers or sellers. They're even more culpable for their glamorizing gun violence. Clean out the hollywood gun money.

 

[Pogo]

what is the point of talking about philosophies if all we do is debate the meaning of a word every time someone wants to push it to the extreme.

i'm not doubting what you say is true. just not for the reasons you're digging your heels in against me on this one. i do at times also so to a point, i get it. but when i see what i'm doing, i stop.

you want to take "always" as literal and of course, ALWAYS - but for me, it was that way growing up. all the kids i knew were like that but i'm SURE not ALL kids in the world were.

you win. have fun. just fucked up a good discussion but hey, shine the virtual trophy of glory up.

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?

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?



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.