Yes. He claimed I said something I did not say.
Would you be ok if I did the same to you?
Yes. He claimed I said something I did not say.
Would you be ok if I did the same to you?
It was a paraphrasing. No apology issued. My core problem is with this:
I’m not going to hash back and forth about what I or you said or didn’t say, the quoted passage is poor argument, argues from anecdote and is needlessly insulting to gun owners. I am not interested in further back and forth on this matter with you specifically. You have posted enough on the topic that I know where you stand, and further discussion is without merit.
So you have no problem with saying that at least 50 million Americans care more about their guns than their wives and children, but obviously you weren’t implying that these these people were “gun nuts” because that would be unreasonable and beyond the pale. Sure.
Talking about discussion without merit…
We have numerous examples of gun violence in the US but you want to hide behind my post.
Maybe my post sucks. Maybe it is the worst possible complaint against guns ever. Is your argument that gun ownership is good based on my shitty post?
Do you really not understand that someone can criticize the particular logic in a particular argument without taking every position, simultaneously, of every possible argument related to the issue?
Your logic was flawed, your conclusions were absurd. Pointing that out is an end unto itself. It does not require anyone to address unrelated arguments.
You keep insisting that if we call your assertion that most gun owners care about their guns more than their families absurd, then somehow, I guess, we must also be arguing that guns are good and all gun laws are bad and let’s all give guns to everyone. I have no idea how you can make these large, completely unjustified jumps except as to distract us from the merits (or lack thereof) of the argument we’re contesting.
I would say this is pure hyperbole on your part. You’re calling the majority of gun owners “gun nuts” in so many words.
What he’s asserting is far more extreme than calling anyone “gun nuts” - to me, “gun nut” is just someone who is really into guns, whether it be as a hobbyist or even more extreme as the survivor prepper type or whatever. But even those gun nuts care more about their family than they care about guns, generally speaking. He’s saying that most gun owners are beyond “gun nut” level of extremes - that guns are the single most important thing in their entire lives, that they live their entire existence around guns. So it’s quite bizarre that he painted the majority of gun owners with an absurd identity, but then takes offense at the idea that he was intending to say they were “gun nuts”
The same way it has changed in any country that gets US media (all Western countries). And, violent crime has come way down in your lifetime.
Maybe the answer is more violence on TV and in the movies?
You’re a gun nut.
Do you take exception to that?
Am I supposed to take offense at the idea that you’d call me a gun nut, but not at the idea that I value guns above all other things, including my family, community, values, etc? Because you freely described 50m+ Americans as the latter, but it’s very important to you to be clear that you’re not calling them all gun nuts. Your leaps of logic and non-sequiturs are becoming more desperate and more random.
Another post against my better judgement.
Note that I said I have a problem with what you said about gun nuts. Not the term gun nuts. Most “gun enthusiasts”, if you want to use a more neutral term, have long since more or less started using the term gun nut in a friendly / playful way, it’s largely an accepted meme term. It’s sort of like the term “redneck”, which was originally a pejorative, but now most people who identify with the term absolutely embrace of, and are, proud of it.
The problem was more how you characterized gun nuts–because you portrayed them as being so crazy, they value firearms more than their families and all kinds of things that isn’t representative of most people, or even a significant portion of people. You actually used the phrase “gun owners”, which doesn’t make what you said better.
Do numbers make things right?
Again…where did I use those words?
The explanation to this question was in my post–I have a problem with what you said. I will not address usage of the phrase “gun nuts” again with you. You have made (in Great Debates) an assertion that “most (not all)” meet this description below:
I think this is worthless anecdote, needlessly insulting to gun owners, shows poor faith, and adds nothing to the discussion.
You are literally putting words in my mouth and YOU take exception?
Where did I use those words?
You have been quoted verbatim. Unless you show any willingness to defend or even respond to criticisms of it, I consider our discussion concluded.
Verbatim?
Where did I use those words?
I really think you should probably try to clear your head and re-read this thread, because you’re drawing conclusions that literally don’t follow anything and are completely nonsensical.
I have clearly spelled out that believing that 50 million+ Americans care about guns more than literally anything else in the world including their families is obviously absurd. I’ve spelled that out repeatedly.
I have no idea how you could possibly interpret anything I’ve said to 1) accept that your idea is true, and that 2) if it is true, somehow that makes… anything… right. You are just inventing random arguments that you aren’t actually sharing with us.
I’m actually concerned about your very strange behavior in this thread and I honestly think you should check with someone in your real life to see if you’re doing alright. I’m going to leave it at that, because this just gets more bizarre.
Here in case you lost it: