Author

Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 137. (Read 450471 times)

hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 500
Join @Bountycloud for the best bounties!
February 19, 2016, 06:08:28 PM
There will always be crazy people in the world who want to do bad things, but guns are what allow them to do these horrible things, without guns so available, these mass shootings wouldn't happen. and if you don't believe that, look at any other civilized country and they don't have easy access to firearms, and the don't have these shootings like we do

No, they just have worse mass murders and violent crime than the US. Sick.

Holocaust & democide denial in 3...2...

You call the Holocaust a "violent crime"? Oo
And during WWII people had the right to bear weapons in Europe you know? We became civilized after...

After what? After we died? It took a lot of people with bigger guns and bombs to stop the genocide in Europe. Even the people of America had to step in and give their support to stop the genocide.

The result is reasonable peace in Europe. For a long time after WWII, there was great peace. Now greedy people in governments all across Europe and the Middle East are trying to start the holocaust-like genocide again.

On top of that, the government people in America are causing unrest over here. They are permitting genocide against millions of innocent, unborn babies.

This time, when the genocide stops, it will stop because God will step in and stop it. But it won't be stopped until after there is a lot more trouble and pain.

More guns for the common people so that they can put justice in place, and bring about peace, so that God won't have to destroy it all.

Cool

They're trying to start another genocide? ^^

And what I mean is that Holocaust took place when Europe was full of guns! Gun control laws were put in place only in the late 80's
So your argument is invalid. It's not because people had gun that the holocaust was stopped.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
February 19, 2016, 11:19:44 AM
There will always be crazy people in the world who want to do bad things, but guns are what allow them to do these horrible things, without guns so available, these mass shootings wouldn't happen. and if you don't believe that, look at any other civilized country and they don't have easy access to firearms, and the don't have these shootings like we do

No, they just have worse mass murders and violent crime than the US. Sick.

Holocaust & democide denial in 3...2...

You call the Holocaust a "violent crime"? Oo
And during WWII people had the right to bear weapons in Europe you know? We became civilized after...

After what? After we died? It took a lot of people with bigger guns and bombs to stop the genocide in Europe. Even the people of America had to step in and give their support to stop the genocide.

The result is reasonable peace in Europe. For a long time after WWII, there was great peace. Now greedy people in governments all across Europe and the Middle East are trying to start the holocaust-like genocide again.

On top of that, the government people in America are causing unrest over here. They are permitting genocide against millions of innocent, unborn babies.

This time, when the genocide stops, it will stop because God will step in and stop it. But it won't be stopped until after there is a lot more trouble and pain.

More guns for the common people so that they can put justice in place, and bring about peace, so that God won't have to destroy it all.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 500
Join @Bountycloud for the best bounties!
February 19, 2016, 06:56:20 AM
There will always be crazy people in the world who want to do bad things, but guns are what allow them to do these horrible things, without guns so available, these mass shootings wouldn't happen. and if you don't believe that, look at any other civilized country and they don't have easy access to firearms, and the don't have these shootings like we do

No, they just have worse mass murders and violent crime than the US. Sick.

Holocaust & democide denial in 3...2...

You call the Holocaust a "violent crime"? Oo
And during WWII people had the right to bear weapons in Europe you know? We became civilized after...
legendary
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1251
February 18, 2016, 03:11:45 PM
There will always be crazy people in the world who want to do bad things, but guns are what allow them to do these horrible things, without guns so available, these mass shootings wouldn't happen. and if you don't believe that, look at any other civilized country and they don't have easy access to firearms, and the don't have these shootings like we do

No, they just have worse mass murders and violent crime than the US. Sick.

Hmm... No. Europe has a much lower violent crimes rates than US.
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1032
RIP Mommy
February 18, 2016, 02:58:11 PM
There will always be crazy people in the world who want to do bad things, but guns are what allow them to do these horrible things, without guns so available, these mass shootings wouldn't happen. and if you don't believe that, look at any other civilized country and they don't have easy access to firearms, and the don't have these shootings like we do

No, they just have worse mass murders and violent crime than the US. Sick.

Holocaust & democide denial in 3...2...
member
Activity: 75
Merit: 10
February 18, 2016, 02:25:53 PM
There will always be crazy people in the world who want to do bad things, but guns are what allow them to do these horrible things, without guns so available, these mass shootings wouldn't happen. and if you don't believe that, look at any other civilized country and they don't have easy access to firearms, and the don't have these shootings like we do
legendary
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1251
February 18, 2016, 02:19:17 PM
I'm not for gun freedom mainly because I consider the whole population and the average citizen as far too stupid to have the right to own a gun.
In my opinion our world is currently deeply in shit and only a Marxist and Socialist revolution can do something in the hope to save it. But people became too dumb, they're blinded by capitalism and flawed history so they don't see how capitalism is responsible for pretty much everything currently happening.

But fact is here: In France after the Revolution freedom of having a weapon was a fundamental right. And it has been so until WWII and the authoritative Vichy government. In fact only fascist made gun ownership illegal. The people should have the right to arm themselves that's for sure, but the people currently don't deserve it. We lost our ideals, our guts, our will to build a better future.
We don't deserve anything but the shitty world we're building.
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 500
Join @Bountycloud for the best bounties!
February 18, 2016, 09:42:29 AM
AH! Where did I look at anything else but the Big Picture? I give you national, international and annual stats only!
Well if you said only what you said, better stop talking as it's pretty damn useless.

I will determine the value of my own efforts, thanks for trying to think for me again though. I know in your native French Caliphate this is considered hospitality. Here some people still value independent thought.

Not trying to think for you, just giving what I think about you and what you said. I think all what you said is useless and that you're protecting yourself by an extreme sensitivity (thanks for the word as I had the wrong one) to any kind of logical fallacy because you have no argument behind. You know most people have some kind of tolerance on those things for the simple reason that language is rarely precise enough to express one's mind without any possibility to misinterpret it. Seems you're taking any debate like a mathematical one, without any kind of approximation. Well I'd recommend you to go back to science, and if you want we can talk about Quantum Theory applied to nanoscale, here I'll agree on the fact that there is no place for any kind of approximation or interpretation.

On a subject where so much of reality is lost in manipulated statistics and rhetoric, the "mathematics" of language are crucial. Without his rule there can be no exchange of logic, because we would be forever lost in fallacious argument which means nothing in reality. You declaring my statements useless does not make it so no matter how much you repeat it to try to convince others of this.

The only thing I am protecting is the right for humanity to defend itself. If you actually even knew how to define a logical fallacy, you would know that using logical fallacies means you have no argument, pointing them out does not mean you have no argument. I have once again emboldened your logical fallacies. I know you won't bother to learn from this, but maybe someone else will learn from your mistakes.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

There was no logical fallacy in my last post as I solely express my own opinion and point of view. There is no logic in this post, only my feeling about you and the emptiness of your mind Wink
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
February 18, 2016, 06:19:09 AM
AH! Where did I look at anything else but the Big Picture? I give you national, international and annual stats only!
Well if you said only what you said, better stop talking as it's pretty damn useless.

I will determine the value of my own efforts, thanks for trying to think for me again though. I know in your native French Caliphate this is considered hospitality. Here some people still value independent thought.

Not trying to think for you, just giving what I think about you and what you said. I think all what you said is useless and that you're protecting yourself by an extreme sensitivity (thanks for the word as I had the wrong one) to any kind of logical fallacy because you have no argument behind. You know most people have some kind of tolerance on those things for the simple reason that language is rarely precise enough to express one's mind without any possibility to misinterpret it. Seems you're taking any debate like a mathematical one, without any kind of approximation. Well I'd recommend you to go back to science, and if you want we can talk about Quantum Theory applied to nanoscale, here I'll agree on the fact that there is no place for any kind of approximation or interpretation.

On a subject where so much of reality is lost in manipulated statistics and rhetoric, the "mathematics" of language are crucial. Without his rule there can be no exchange of logic, because we would be forever lost in fallacious argument which means nothing in reality. You declaring my statements useless does not make it so no matter how much you repeat it to try to convince others of this.

The only thing I am protecting is the right for humanity to defend itself. If you actually even knew how to define a logical fallacy, you would know that using logical fallacies means you have no argument, pointing them out does not mean you have no argument. I have once again emboldened your logical fallacies. I know you won't bother to learn from this, but maybe someone else will learn from your mistakes.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 722
February 18, 2016, 01:20:26 AM
I feel that gun control is needed in order to stop people that have a mental condition / issue that may make them kill innocent people / harm them. Gun control has to be done to an extent is all.

That law is already there... If you have ever been committed to a mental institution, you are not allowed to own a gun

The only issue is person to person sales... a gun dealer runs a background check, but your buddy could still buy a gun for you (known as a straw-man purchase, also illegal)... or gun shows, which is considered person to person, not dealer (at least it used to be, I think Obama wrote an Executive Order about this recently)
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1032
RIP Mommy
February 18, 2016, 01:13:48 AM
I feel that gun control is needed in order to stop people that have a mental condition / issue that may make them kill innocent people / harm them. Gun control has to be done to an extent is all.

Gun control cannot, and does not, stop a single person with a mental condition / issue that may make them kill innocent people / harm them.

It can, and does, only ensure that those without a mental condition / issue that may make them kill innocent people / harm them, bleed.
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1285
Flying Hellfish is a Commie
February 17, 2016, 11:37:59 PM
I feel that gun control is needed in order to stop people that have a mental condition / issue that may make them kill innocent people / harm them. Gun control has to be done to an extent is all.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
February 17, 2016, 08:58:27 PM
Is it my imagination or do most liberal / conservative discussions consist of LOGICAL ERRORS (liberal) debating LOGIC (conservative)?

Sure does seem that way.

I don't know what you mean by liberal, I don't consider myself as a liberal.
But it's not your imagination, conservatives having absolutely no argument (at least they don't bother bringing them up) they can only point out the logical inaccuracy with a zero tolerance like we were debating about Quantum Physics and not about social science and studies. Arguing would need to have arguments, evidence and to be able to think, which it seems they're not able to do. On the other hand I tend to sometimes go a bit too fast in my reasoning or to misunderstand/misinterpret some things. I consider it's better to go forward while not perfectly in the good direction than to don't move.

And you might have never though about it but not the whole world is English native, so it might be hard to be perfectly accurate...

Well that's a reasonable explanation.  I think everyone here has allowance for poor translations and such.

Sometimes (as above) I pose a question in a rhetorical sense.  That means it is for discussion, not that I have revealed my personal view.

And there are many arguments about Quantum Physics.  Show me some strings. 

(Lol...)
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 500
Join @Bountycloud for the best bounties!
February 17, 2016, 06:56:43 PM
AH! Where did I look at anything else but the Big Picture? I give you national, international and annual stats only!
Well if you said only what you said, better stop talking as it's pretty damn useless.

I will determine the value of my own efforts, thanks for trying to think for me again though. I know in your native French Caliphate this is considered hospitality. Here some people still value independent thought.

Not trying to think for you, just giving what I think about you and what you said. I think all what you said is useless and that you're protecting yourself by an extreme sensitivity (thanks for the word as I had the wrong one) to any kind of logical fallacy because you have no argument behind. You know most people have some kind of tolerance on those things for the simple reason that language is rarely precise enough to express one's mind without any possibility to misinterpret it. Seems you're taking any debate like a mathematical one, without any kind of approximation. Well I'd recommend you to go back to science, and if you want we can talk about Quantum Theory applied to nanoscale, here I'll agree on the fact that there is no place for any kind of approximation or interpretation.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
February 17, 2016, 09:19:41 AM
AH! Where did I look at anything else but the Big Picture? I give you national, international and annual stats only!
Well if you said only what you said, better stop talking as it's pretty damn useless.

I will determine the value of my own efforts, thanks for trying to think for me again though. I know in your native French Caliphate this is considered hospitality. Here some people still value independent thought.
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 500
Join @Bountycloud for the best bounties!
February 17, 2016, 09:03:03 AM
Well if I can't interpret your words in any way, your assertion is... Useless. Because if what you meant to say is just EXACTLY what you said, you just basically said "we have a higher diversity" without linking it to the subject. My only interpretation was to consider that your argument about racial diversity was to be linked to the higher violence in the USA. If it is not what you wanted to say then sorry for the interpretation. It's just that your statement is useless.

Sorry I thought you tried to add an argument. You were just posting without any goal. I'll stop interpreting whatever you say, though you should maybe read a bit of philosophy about the use of language because it seems you never understood the important part of language: words are MEANT TO BE INTERPRETED! Otherwise just talk to yourself. If you don't take into account what the person you're talking to then no need to talk.

You can interpret all day if you want, your problem is that you repeated those internal interpretations as if they came from me. That is your gap in logic. You don't get to interpret my statements then attribute them to me. As for the rest of your statement I suggest you research logic before you pretend to teach me "the philosophy" of language.

Ah! Talking about logic? Well if you want to talk about logic, last time I checked I gave you proofs that USA society is much more violent and that could maybe be correlated to the gun freedom. And you never gave any argument to counter this.
And I seriously suggest you to read a bit more. Seems you have a lot to learn about communication if you know so much already about logic.

Actually I did offer a counter argument to you, just because you are too willfully ignorant to perceive it doesn't mean it did not happen. One example I gave that is a cause of violence is the diversity of the US population. You automatically assume that correlation equals causation, which is your argument I emboldened above. You assume that these statistics are accurate enough to be compared 1 to 1 when there are many vast differences between our countries not included in those statistics that you just brush aside in order to jump right to your bias of guns being the cause, not a result of violence. This is not "proofs", at best is is flimsy circumstantial evidence with no proof of correlation.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

I thought you would like this article considering it concerns your home country: https://www.rt.com/news/332608-guns-eagles-death-metal-paris/

That's why I added the "maybe" in italic, because it's not a proof in itself as you can't prove anything concerning the violence/gun debate unless you make some kind of A/B testing.

And this is not a counter argument. You talked about racial diversity, I took it as a counter argument and explained why it's not enough to justify the difference of violent crimes rates. Not at all.
Then you came and say "I never said that" well of course but you implied it, proof is you're talking about it again here.

Do whatever you want I don't care. Fact is we got less violent crimes and less deaths every year, and gun control is a good explanation of this. I'm not saying it's the absolute proof, maybe other factors can explain it, but I don't see any factor important enough to explain it and you didn't provide any.

Oh and the Death Angels can say whatever they want and Donald Trump too, the people killed on that night were killed in a matter of seconds. Having guns wouldn't have changed a thing, it would probably have increased the number of deaths in fact because everyone was totally panicking! There was a lot of injuries on that day and the following days because people thought someone was a terrorist. In a restaurant there was a huge panick move because a lightbulb exploded.
Well think whatever you want but the guns wouldn't have done shit against the bombs or the 3 guys firing Ak-47 in the Bataclan. Unless there was some kind of psycho professional always ready to shoot even at a concert, maybe it could have done something... Like saving a dozen of life maybe. But what's sure is that the dozen of life that would have MAYBE been saved here wouldn't have repayed the thousands of killed you got everyyear because of gun freedom. In fact it wouldn't even repay the children that kill themselves by accident everyyear.
So no sorry but that's the wort kind of argument. Look at the big picture not just one spectacular event.

Adding "maybe" doesn't make your premise any less of a logical fallacy. I give you credit for learning how not to use exclusive language tho, at least you are learning something, even if it has nothing to do with guns. I said exactly what I said, I didn't imply anything. You can interpret what i said all day, but at the end of the day I said what I said, not what you interpret me as saying. I find it very ironic a gun control advocate is telling me to look at the big picture not a single spectacular event. It seems this is the favorite game of the gun control crowd any time one of these evens happen in the US. I guess when it happens in a country with strict gun control clearly it is just an outlier and should be disregarded. Funny how those standards flip depending on how it serves your bias against people having a right to self defense.

AH! Where did I look at anything else but the Big Picture? I give you national, international and annual stats only!
Well if you said only what you said, better stop talking as it's pretty damn useless.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
February 17, 2016, 08:10:51 AM
Well if I can't interpret your words in any way, your assertion is... Useless. Because if what you meant to say is just EXACTLY what you said, you just basically said "we have a higher diversity" without linking it to the subject. My only interpretation was to consider that your argument about racial diversity was to be linked to the higher violence in the USA. If it is not what you wanted to say then sorry for the interpretation. It's just that your statement is useless.

Sorry I thought you tried to add an argument. You were just posting without any goal. I'll stop interpreting whatever you say, though you should maybe read a bit of philosophy about the use of language because it seems you never understood the important part of language: words are MEANT TO BE INTERPRETED! Otherwise just talk to yourself. If you don't take into account what the person you're talking to then no need to talk.

You can interpret all day if you want, your problem is that you repeated those internal interpretations as if they came from me. That is your gap in logic. You don't get to interpret my statements then attribute them to me. As for the rest of your statement I suggest you research logic before you pretend to teach me "the philosophy" of language.

Ah! Talking about logic? Well if you want to talk about logic, last time I checked I gave you proofs that USA society is much more violent and that could maybe be correlated to the gun freedom. And you never gave any argument to counter this.
And I seriously suggest you to read a bit more. Seems you have a lot to learn about communication if you know so much already about logic.

Actually I did offer a counter argument to you, just because you are too willfully ignorant to perceive it doesn't mean it did not happen. One example I gave that is a cause of violence is the diversity of the US population. You automatically assume that correlation equals causation, which is your argument I emboldened above. You assume that these statistics are accurate enough to be compared 1 to 1 when there are many vast differences between our countries not included in those statistics that you just brush aside in order to jump right to your bias of guns being the cause, not a result of violence. This is not "proofs", at best is is flimsy circumstantial evidence with no proof of correlation.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

I thought you would like this article considering it concerns your home country: https://www.rt.com/news/332608-guns-eagles-death-metal-paris/

That's why I added the "maybe" in italic, because it's not a proof in itself as you can't prove anything concerning the violence/gun debate unless you make some kind of A/B testing.

And this is not a counter argument. You talked about racial diversity, I took it as a counter argument and explained why it's not enough to justify the difference of violent crimes rates. Not at all.
Then you came and say "I never said that" well of course but you implied it, proof is you're talking about it again here.

Do whatever you want I don't care. Fact is we got less violent crimes and less deaths every year, and gun control is a good explanation of this. I'm not saying it's the absolute proof, maybe other factors can explain it, but I don't see any factor important enough to explain it and you didn't provide any.

Oh and the Death Angels can say whatever they want and Donald Trump too, the people killed on that night were killed in a matter of seconds. Having guns wouldn't have changed a thing, it would probably have increased the number of deaths in fact because everyone was totally panicking! There was a lot of injuries on that day and the following days because people thought someone was a terrorist. In a restaurant there was a huge panick move because a lightbulb exploded.
Well think whatever you want but the guns wouldn't have done shit against the bombs or the 3 guys firing Ak-47 in the Bataclan. Unless there was some kind of psycho professional always ready to shoot even at a concert, maybe it could have done something... Like saving a dozen of life maybe. But what's sure is that the dozen of life that would have MAYBE been saved here wouldn't have repayed the thousands of killed you got everyyear because of gun freedom. In fact it wouldn't even repay the children that kill themselves by accident everyyear.
So no sorry but that's the wort kind of argument. Look at the big picture not just one spectacular event.

Adding "maybe" doesn't make your premise any less of a logical fallacy. I give you credit for learning how not to use exclusive language tho, at least you are learning something, even if it has nothing to do with guns. I said exactly what I said, I didn't imply anything. You can interpret what i said all day, but at the end of the day I said what I said, not what you interpret me as saying. I find it very ironic a gun control advocate is telling me to look at the big picture not a single spectacular event. It seems this is the favorite game of the gun control crowd any time one of these evens happen in the US. I guess when it happens in a country with strict gun control clearly it is just an outlier and should be disregarded. Funny how those standards flip depending on how it serves your bias against people having a right to self defense.
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 500
Join @Bountycloud for the best bounties!
February 17, 2016, 08:03:09 AM
Well if I can't interpret your words in any way, your assertion is... Useless. Because if what you meant to say is just EXACTLY what you said, you just basically said "we have a higher diversity" without linking it to the subject. My only interpretation was to consider that your argument about racial diversity was to be linked to the higher violence in the USA. If it is not what you wanted to say then sorry for the interpretation. It's just that your statement is useless.

Sorry I thought you tried to add an argument. You were just posting without any goal. I'll stop interpreting whatever you say, though you should maybe read a bit of philosophy about the use of language because it seems you never understood the important part of language: words are MEANT TO BE INTERPRETED! Otherwise just talk to yourself. If you don't take into account what the person you're talking to then no need to talk.

You can interpret all day if you want, your problem is that you repeated those internal interpretations as if they came from me. That is your gap in logic. You don't get to interpret my statements then attribute them to me. As for the rest of your statement I suggest you research logic before you pretend to teach me "the philosophy" of language.

Ah! Talking about logic? Well if you want to talk about logic, last time I checked I gave you proofs that USA society is much more violent and that could maybe be correlated to the gun freedom. And you never gave any argument to counter this.
And I seriously suggest you to read a bit more. Seems you have a lot to learn about communication if you know so much already about logic.

Actually I did offer a counter argument to you, just because you are too willfully ignorant to perceive it doesn't mean it did not happen. One example I gave that is a cause of violence is the diversity of the US population. You automatically assume that correlation equals causation, which is your argument I emboldened above. You assume that these statistics are accurate enough to be compared 1 to 1 when there are many vast differences between our countries not included in those statistics that you just brush aside in order to jump right to your bias of guns being the cause, not a result of violence. This is not "proofs", at best is is flimsy circumstantial evidence with no proof of correlation.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

I thought you would like this article considering it concerns your home country: https://www.rt.com/news/332608-guns-eagles-death-metal-paris/

That's why I added the "maybe" in italic, because it's not a proof in itself as you can't prove anything concerning the violence/gun debate unless you make some kind of A/B testing.

And this is not a counter argument. You talked about racial diversity, I took it as a counter argument and explained why it's not enough to justify the difference of violent crimes rates. Not at all.
Then you came and say "I never said that" well of course but you implied it, proof is you're talking about it again here.

Do whatever you want I don't care. Fact is we got less violent crimes and less deaths every year, and gun control is a good explanation of this. I'm not saying it's the absolute proof, maybe other factors can explain it, but I don't see any factor important enough to explain it and you didn't provide any.

Oh and the Death Angels can say whatever they want and Donald Trump too, the people killed on that night were killed in a matter of seconds. Having guns wouldn't have changed a thing, it would probably have increased the number of deaths in fact because everyone was totally panicking! There was a lot of injuries on that day and the following days because people thought someone was a terrorist. In a restaurant there was a huge panick move because a lightbulb exploded.
Well think whatever you want but the guns wouldn't have done shit against the bombs or the 3 guys firing Ak-47 in the Bataclan. Unless there was some kind of psycho professional always ready to shoot even at a concert, maybe it could have done something... Like saving a dozen of life maybe. But what's sure is that the dozen of life that would have MAYBE been saved here wouldn't have repayed the thousands of killed you got everyyear because of gun freedom. In fact it wouldn't even repay the children that kill themselves by accident everyyear.
So no sorry but that's the wort kind of argument. Look at the big picture not just one spectacular event.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
February 17, 2016, 07:39:09 AM
Well if I can't interpret your words in any way, your assertion is... Useless. Because if what you meant to say is just EXACTLY what you said, you just basically said "we have a higher diversity" without linking it to the subject. My only interpretation was to consider that your argument about racial diversity was to be linked to the higher violence in the USA. If it is not what you wanted to say then sorry for the interpretation. It's just that your statement is useless.

Sorry I thought you tried to add an argument. You were just posting without any goal. I'll stop interpreting whatever you say, though you should maybe read a bit of philosophy about the use of language because it seems you never understood the important part of language: words are MEANT TO BE INTERPRETED! Otherwise just talk to yourself. If you don't take into account what the person you're talking to then no need to talk.

You can interpret all day if you want, your problem is that you repeated those internal interpretations as if they came from me. That is your gap in logic. You don't get to interpret my statements then attribute them to me. As for the rest of your statement I suggest you research logic before you pretend to teach me "the philosophy" of language.

Ah! Talking about logic? Well if you want to talk about logic, last time I checked I gave you proofs that USA society is much more violent and that could maybe be correlated to the gun freedom. And you never gave any argument to counter this.
And I seriously suggest you to read a bit more. Seems you have a lot to learn about communication if you know so much already about logic.

Actually I did offer a counter argument to you, just because you are too willfully ignorant to perceive it doesn't mean it did not happen. One example I gave that is a cause of violence is the diversity of the US population. You automatically assume that correlation equals causation, which is your argument I emboldened above. You assume that these statistics are accurate enough to be compared 1 to 1 when there are many vast differences between our countries not included in those statistics that you just brush aside in order to jump right to your bias of guns being the cause, not a result of violence. This is not "proofs", at best is is flimsy circumstantial evidence with no proof of correlation.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

I thought you would like this article considering it concerns your home country: https://www.rt.com/news/332608-guns-eagles-death-metal-paris/
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 500
Join @Bountycloud for the best bounties!
February 17, 2016, 05:48:16 AM
Is it my imagination or do most liberal / conservative discussions consist of LOGICAL ERRORS (liberal) debating LOGIC (conservative)?

Sure does seem that way.

I don't know what you mean by liberal, I don't consider myself as a liberal.
But it's not your imagination, conservatives having absolutely no argument (at least they don't bother bringing them up) they can only point out the logical inaccuracy with a zero tolerance like we were debating about Quantum Physics and not about social science and studies. Arguing would need to have arguments, evidence and to be able to think, which it seems they're not able to do. On the other hand I tend to sometimes go a bit too fast in my reasoning or to misunderstand/misinterpret some things. I consider it's better to go forward while not perfectly in the good direction than to don't move.

And you might have never though about it but not the whole world is English native, so it might be hard to be perfectly accurate...
Jump to: