You proved my point with remarkable alacrity though.
The Pit rules being what they are, I’d like to go on record as saying that I hope you don’t suffer an unfortunate accident involving a chainsaw.
Under other circumstances, it’s possible I would say differently.
If only you’d ban chainsaws, there’d be no problem here.
Ok, let Me save You a lot of trouble.
All gun threads, past, present and the future distilled down:
A: I wish there would be less gun violence.
B: What ?! You want to ban cars, swimming pools and saturated fats so criminals could kill Us easier?!?!
A: You’re a psycho.
B: Pinko!
Now mods can close this thread, and We all can go to use Our time in a more productive manner.
"…and another snaggletoothed twat is heard from. "
Confused - is the issue Anglophiobia or vagina dentata, or Hanna Barbera? "Heavens to Murgatroyd! I’m mensturating!
If you outlaw chainsaws, then only outlaws will have chainsaws!
None of the above, really. Just engaging in some recreational offensive stereotyping to counterbalance the noise from the UK set. Their participation in these threads runs largely to throwing gasoline on a fire. Some do it with greater sophistication than others, I guess. None of them, though, have any stake in the matter.
I see your point, and I’ve never had much use for British moral snootperiority* either. But they post their opinions as individuals, same as the rest of us. Never “On behalf of Her Majesty’s government…”
*that dripingly disdainful way BBC commentators pronounce “American:” “Hum-MEYR-hicun,” as if vomiting
Well, heavens preserve you the next time I see you daring to volunteer an opinion on anything at all that doesn’t directly threaten your own interests, that’s all. Fortunately, the rest of the board by and large seem to recognise that it’s possible to be disinterested without being obliged to be uninterested, and that someone’s powers of reasoning aren’t voided simply by having nothing to gain or lose in the matter. But I guess we all try to silence those who disagree with us if we think we can get away with it, yes?
Well, I wasn’t calling all Brits “ignorant, bucktoothed twats.” Just the specific ones in this thread.
The Queen, Paul McCartney, Winston Churchill, Benny Hill, and E.W. Barton-Wright are just a few people from the UK who seem very cool, indeed. Not an ignorant, bucktoothed twat in the bunch.
See, I never did care what the Brits (or the Canadians or anybody else) do WRT guns in their own countries. They can outlaw them completely or give them away in boxes of cereal and it’s all the same to me. What I do care about, in the sense that I get mildly annoyed anyway, is people shit-stirring in hot-button political discussion in which they have no stake whatsoever.
“Heavens preserve [me]?” Why? What are you going to do? Quote me from this thread? That’s a powerfully intimidating threat, that is. You’re a regular James Bond supervillain.
You go ahead and monitor my posts if you’ve nothing better to do. If you do find me contributing to a political (note how I’ve used that word a bunch of times now) thread that directly concerns only the citizens of another country, I will not be there simply to shit-stir.
strokes cat Funny you should say that. But PALATR is more my style.
So you say. When you have something to say that others find an inconvenient disagreement with their viewpoint, it’ll be germane, necessary and beneficial for all concerned to slip in your $0.02-worth. But when Brits dare to speak out on the gun-control question, they’re just shit-stirring. :rolleyes:
Well, no…I don’t think there is any competition or coherent debate in either thread. I was just re-mocking your attempt to paint my original mocking post about your ridiculous claim that most people who own guns will be hurt by them and then using that quote to ‘prove’ some sort of confirmation point about…something to do with, um, gun lovers or right wingers. Or something.
In your case, I’ll go with sniffing the glue, but John Mace’s original comment in the thread that spawned this ranting Pit thread about mean pro-gun people (or John Mace…or something related to something to do with guns or gun people, or small furry animals) was was spot on…the OP in GD was a ridiculous series of strawmen and attempts at well poisoning, that essentially broke down into a series of silly questions about whether we can debate things related to guns…without actually asking any questions or putting out anything to freaking debate. Why silly shit like that is allowed to stay in GD is beyond me, but the straw on this subject is thick and fast, with anti-gun folks jerking their knee instantly and attempting in threads such as the one that spawned this (equally ridiculous) thread attempts to have a debate about whether or not we can have a debate about…something to do with guns. Or the Second Amendment. Or violence in the US and how it relates to the prevalence of guns. Mind, not a debate about any of those things, but a debate about whether someone can ask a question about something related to those things because pro-gun people are so mean and stuff.
Oh, please, stop. Even for this board you are getting rather carried away with yourself. How lucky for the Brits that they have you to stand between them and me. Why, they ought to make you a peer of the realm for your exemplary courage.
You go ahead and monitor me, little rooty-toot, if that is really the best thing you can think of to do with your allotted lifespan. When you finally jump out with what believe is your triumphant GOT YA!!! moment, please don’t be too disappointed when I respond by horse laughing at you.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 2, section 2, clause 2 of the USC.
Edit: Speaking of Orwell, did you recall the bit where he joined the fascists in sniping at the Revolutionary Marxist group POUM in Homage to Catalonia? Because I certainly don’t.
I wasn’t trying to, nor did I need to prove anything in that post. It was simply a statement of fact that I am glad it happens. Don’t read too much into things.
It would have been more effective of a defense of pro-gun people if he didn’t confirm the OP in his first reply. Because pro-gun people wanted to see it as well poisoning, and probably cannot see it as anything else, John Mace’s response confirmed what he attempted to not confirm.
It would have been a better use of his efforts, had he been serious about a debate, to reply and say that he himself would not respond as JS’sLE claimed pro-gun people tended to respond, and maybe included a valid debate point. However, failing that, John Mace confirms and perpetuate the correct stereotype that pro-gun people cannot function as normal when the gun debate happens, and will always respond with threadshits.
By the way, the correct response to the above is not more threadshitting. If you’re serious about the debate, and I’m not, then you will not confirm what has already been confirmed. Break the mold XT, respond with actual valid points. Something without accusations of improper political beliefs, swimming pools, or well-worn cliches.
If all you got from that is that the OP complained about people being mean, then you don’t understand at all. This is why its impossible to have a debate with you people. Hell, I have half an inkling to post as a pro-gun person to show you how its done :rolleyes:
You seem to be assuming that only pro-gun debaters would see that OP as well-poisoning. This is not the case. It was pretty obvious that this is what it was, even for anti-gun Dopers.
Regards,
Shodan
Not all who thought it was well-poisoning were pro-gun. All pro-gun people thought it was well-poisoning. All people who didn’t think it was well-poisoning were pro-gun control.
Seriously…did you READ the OP? With an open mind? It was a series of idiotic questions asking ‘can I talk about this without people being mean to me’…over and over again.
Well, I obviously wasn’t, since I was mocking you. That’s the meaning of the ‘:p’ at the end, since you missed that part. It’s pretty funny that it was you that took it seriously, while to me this discussion has been incredibly funny.
Naw, it was calling a spade a spade. If that OP had been written in that way about any other subject John’s comment would have been the most mild…and that OP would have been tossed into the Pit or at best IMHO or MPSIMS. Any of which would have been like tossing chum and blood into shark infested waters.
Here is the original OP. Where is the beef? Here, let me help…I’ll repost it for you:
What the fuck is the question? What the fuck is the debate? Get real…it’s a load of horseshit, and the ONLY reason it is still in GD is because it’s vaguely about guns…or something.
You forgot A-1: If all guns were illegal or heavily regulated, we’d all be safe. Once that idiotic statement is made, you get idiocy from both sides.