[civilian_number_two]

This is Internet Debate Tactic #2 (right after comparing your opponent's ideas with those of the Nazis). After all is done, say that you were joking, or that you were just trying out some ideas for a book you're writing, or that you think everyone who argued with you was a loser. I think I've seen this one here before ...

[Deucaon]

Ah I see, so we're continuing our figurative, fact-light debate. Then let me just suggest that every third person down under aught to buy a pointy hat to discourage drop bear related crime.

PS: Dont think that just because the debate has devolved into one big joke, that you get off easy. That one big joke is squarely aimed at your idea of total gun rights for those living in the savage waste lands of America.

Not total. Its not like people should be allowed with RPG-7s. Though, your idea the criminals will break into houses and simply steal all those assault rifles brings up the question as to why have guns at all if criminals are simply going to steal them?

This is Internet Debate Tactic #2 (right after comparing your opponent's ideas with those of the Nazis). After all is done, say that you were joking, or that you were just trying out some ideas for a book you're writing, or that you think everyone who argued with you was a loser. I think I've seen this one here before ...

The entire debate wasn't a joke and I don't care what a couple of dimwits on the other side of the world think of me.

[civilian_number_two]

The entire debate wasn't a joke and I don't care what a couple of dimwits on the other side of the world think of me.

Standard Internet Insult #1: I don't care what dimwits across the world think of me. Necessary for this insult to work are two unlikely things: 1, that you really don't care about the opinions of people with whom you are holding a discussion and 2, if it's actually possible to argue with someone while not caring what that person thinks, then it's necessary conversely for that person to care dearly what you think. Ie you are completely disengaged (while contending it's not entirely a joke), but folks halfway around the world will be devastated when you call them dimwits. A third necessity should go unmentioned, but it reads like this: you hold the position of argumentative superiority, having made bulletproof arguments and having dashed your opponent's hopes with reason and factual argument. In this sense, you have made them really appear to be dimwits in the light of your superior argument. Hence calling them dimwits will hold some weight. Most of the time, when words like that have come up (common variants being "idiot," "asshole," and "faggot," the criteria for correct use of the words has not been met.

I have seen that one before as well.

[Jordan]

Ok deucon lost the argument. I like those rules they're funny to read.

[J m HofMarN]

Not total. Its not like people should be allowed with RPG-7s. Though, your idea the criminals will break into houses and simply steal all those assault rifles brings up the question as to why have guns at all if criminals are simply going to steal them?

It's almost as though you have no understanding of what an assault rifle is. First of all, they are, as numerous people have pointed out, in no way necessary for home defense. Second of all, they're big. You cant just stick them in a sock drawer or down the back of your pants. So, they're not easily concealed and will therefore likely make an easy target for thieves, far more so than a hand gun.

The entire debate wasn't a joke

You know, when everyone who argued on your side was producing sarcastic arguments focusing on The Godfather et al, I think it's pretty safe to say that your side of the debate was a joke.

Civ- I seem to remember something like that happening with some crazy who wanted to know whether ethics were a waste of child and if wolves had found God or not.

Also, it's good to see those rules actually written out and used in an applicable manner, unlike during Hannibal's debate rules fetish.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 07 June 2008 - 09:03 PM

[Slade]

Hanny's rules:

Rule 1: JM is a consumerist washing machine.

Rule 2: George Lucas is a Nazi.

Rule 3: EVERYONE is a Nazi.

Rule 4: Slade is an asshole for pointing out when Hannibal was wrong.

Good times.

D: Yeah, trying to pretend your argument was a big joke after you've been thoroughly trounced that even you can see it through your incredibly thick skull just makes you look like a jerk. But sure, we're all dimwits because we don't see the need for US households to own assault rifles for self/home defense like you do from halfway around the world with no experience in the US. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Oh, and JM: I've played Grand Theft Auto. I know you can hide a rocket launcher in your pocket unnoticed. And cops will forget about you as long as you repaint your car!

[Deucaon]

Standard Internet Insult #1: I don't care what dimwits across the world think of me. Necessary for this insult to work are two unlikely things: 1, that you really don't care about the opinions of people with whom you are holding a discussion and 2, if it's actually possible to argue with someone while not caring what that person thinks, then it's necessary conversely for that person to care dearly what you think. Ie you are completely disengaged (while contending it's not entirely a joke), but folks halfway around the world will be devastated when you call them dimwits. A third necessity should go unmentioned, but it reads like this: you hold the position of argumentative superiority, having made bulletproof arguments and having dashed your opponent's hopes with reason and factual argument. In this sense, you have made them really appear to be dimwits in the light of your superior argument. Hence calling them dimwits will hold some weight. Most of the time, when words like that have come up (common variants being "idiot," "asshole," and "faggot," the criteria for correct use of the words has not been met.

I have seen that one before as well.

You're obviously not devastated enough to write an entire paragraph of bullshit... wait... you are. I am glad you have "seen it all before" grandpa.

It's almost as though you have no understanding of what an assault rifle is. First of all, they are, as numerous people have pointed out, in no way necessary for home defense. Second of all, they're big. You cant just stick them in a sock drawer or down the back of your pants. So, they're not easily concealed and will therefore likely make an easy target for thieves, far more so than a hand gun.

So when people buy assault rifles they publicly broadcast it in the streets... I fear that Americans might actually be stupid enough to do this so I shall concede this pointless debate on the grounds that Americans are so brainless that they shouldn't be given plastic toys, let alone automatic weapons.

You know, when everyone who argued on your side was producing sarcastic arguments focusing on The Godfather et al, I think it's pretty safe to say that your side of the debate was a joke.

I believe in this debate. This debate has made my fortune.

D: Yeah, trying to pretend your argument was a big joke after you've been thoroughly trounced that even you can see it through your incredibly thick skull just makes you look like a jerk. But sure, we're all dimwits because we don't see the need for US households to own assault rifles for self/home defense like you do from halfway around the world with no experience in the US. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

My bad, I concede that Americans are too stupid to have guns as I have previously stated.

[J m HofMarN]

So wait wait.... Because two Americans and a Canadian won a debate about providing automatic weapons to Americans, you believe that Americans are not fit to have assault rifles? When previously you were certain that we would all be killed by crackhead hordes of automatic weapon wielding minority welfare moms if we did not have them?

Honestly man, no matter how flawed your assumptions might be, that's still an awful fate to wish on someone.

[civilian_number_two]

You're obviously not devastated enough to write an entire paragraph of bullshit... wait... you are. I am glad you have "seen it all before" grandpa.

Yawn. Here's another comon Internet insult. The premise that a fellow must be completely invested in an argument if he spent any time at all producing a response. So ... if I reply to your post at all, the I must be emotionally invested, therefore you may call me a dimwit and therefore your previous arguments in the thread are valid and sound. In fact, I am unable to say "you know, calling people names is pretty childish," because if I do so, then I must be a big crybaby.

I shouldn't have to mention that different people have different reasons for postin on online forums. While many may, as you suggest, invest heavily in their posts, others may post out of boredom at work, or out of amusement, or out of an interest in keeping in touch with an online community they've joined. It's not all anger and resentment on the Internet, despite what some thread-jumping or argument-dragging trolls may believe.

Here on these forums, we have had some pretty crazy conversations, from what's wrong with STAR WARS to fantasy dates to paintshop penis contests. You might believe that every member of those conversations was heavily invested emotionally (Spoon drew the best penis by the way), but I think you'd be mistaken. In some of those threads I posted some damned long pages. This is evidence that I have time on my hands, not that I am angry or freaked out that Internet denizens aren't getting my point (read: agreeing with me nonstop).

So, no. I am not hurt by your effort to call me dim-witted. I can take it with a grain of salt since you only do so when I disagree with your argument that wihtout assault rifles, American citizens are in terrible danger from home-invading thieves (there are few Americansa currently who own assault rifles, and the danger of home-invading thieves is incredibly low). If you had accused me of being dimwitted for any reason other than falling victim to the paranoid racial fearmongering of the statistically-challenged, I would disagree on those points instead. But still, it wouldn't hurt my feelings. And yes, I'd probably post a paragraph or two on the subject, but you shouldn't take that to mean that inside I was a crying clown.

[Deucaon]

So wait wait.... Because two Americans and a Canadian won a debate about providing automatic weapons to Americans, you believe that Americans are not fit to have assault rifles? When previously you were certain that we would all be killed by crackhead hordes of automatic weapon wielding minority welfare moms if we did not have them?

Honestly man, no matter how flawed your assumptions might be, that's still an awful fate to wish on someone.

I thought that if lots of people had assault weapons anonymously then it would stem house invasions, obviously not since... well I already explained it.

Yawn. Here's another comon Internet insult. The premise that a fellow must be completely invested in an argument if he spent any time at all producing a response. So ... if I reply to your post at all, the I must be emotionally invested, therefore you may call me a dimwit and therefore your previous arguments in the thread are valid and sound. In fact, I am unable to say "you know, calling people names is pretty childish," because if I do so, then I must be a big crybaby.

I shouldn't have to mention that different people have different reasons for postin on online forums. While many may, as you suggest, invest heavily in their posts, others may post out of boredom at work, or out of amusement, or out of an interest in keeping in touch with an online community they've joined. It's not all anger and resentment on the Internet, despite what some thread-jumping or argument-dragging trolls may believe.

Here on these forums, we have had some pretty crazy conversations, from what's wrong with STAR WARS to fantasy dates to paintshop penis contests. You might believe that every member of those conversations was heavily invested emotionally (Spoon drew the best penis by the way), but I think you'd be mistaken. In some of those threads I posted some damned long pages. This is evidence that I have time on my hands, not that I am angry or freaked out that Internet denizens aren't getting my point (read: agreeing with me nonstop).

So, no. I am not hurt by your effort to call me dim-witted. I can take it with a grain of salt since you only do so when I disagree with your argument that wihtout assault rifles, American citizens are in terrible danger from home-invading thieves (there are few Americansa currently who own assault rifles, and the danger of home-invading thieves is incredibly low). If you had accused me of being dimwitted for any reason other than falling victim to the paranoid racial fearmongering of the statistically-challenged, I would disagree on those points instead. But still, it wouldn't hurt my feelings. And yes, I'd probably post a paragraph or two on the subject, but you shouldn't take that to mean that inside I was a crying clown.

You drew penises? I thought this was meant to be a family friendly forum.

[J m HofMarN]

I thought that if lots of people had assault weapons anonymously then it would stem house invasions, obviously not since... well I already explained it.

No, actually you didnt explain it. You just said that all Americans were stupid. That's totally unrelated to this latest claim, and all of your arguments previous to that revelation were in favor of the above conclusion. The people who explained it were Civ, myself, and, ya know, everyone but you. The level of intelligence Americans may or may not have has very little to do statistically with crime rates or whether the ownership of military weaponry would stem said crime rates. It has even less to do with actual crime rates since the crimes you proposed to thwart largely exist (as we all pointed out) in your imagination.

As for my penis contest, it was done with paintshop, so you really cant say that the things were graphic imagery. It did however let us all know that Slade's Girlfriend has a better penis than he does.

It's not all anger and resentment on the Internet

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to resentment, resentment... leads to trolling.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 08 June 2008 - 07:06 PM

[Deucaon]

No, actually you didnt explain it. You just said that all Americans were stupid. That's totally unrelated to this latest claim, and all of your arguments previous to that revelation were in favor of the above conclusion. The people who explained it were Civ, myself, and, ya know, everyone but you. The level of intelligence Americans may or may not have has very little to do statistically with crime rates or whether the ownership of military weaponry would stem said crime rates. It has even less to do with actual crime rates since the crimes you proposed to thwart largely exist (as we all pointed out) in your imagination.

So your argument is that Americans are intelligent enough not to broadcast that they have a gun except you would rather not try and prevent crime (through deterrence at least) but rather put all your hopes in the local police force.

[civilian_number_two]

I don't think he said anything about puytting all of his hopes in the local police. But the discussion is whether assault weapons are needed to protect us from home invasions. You have failed to show the necessity of assault weapons, since the stats you posted show that assault weapons are used ina minority of crimes. You would do better now to argue simply from the point of view of personal freedoms. And yes, the typical "You are all dimwits" shit should fucking stop right fucking now. This is not, by the way, a family board. Where the shit did you buy that crack?

[J m HofMarN]

So your argument is that Americans are intelligent enough not to broadcast that they have a gun

No, that's not my argument because that argument does not need to be made. Americans do not generally buy guns and then wave them around firing into the air. We do not all own cowboy hats. Our spurs do not jingle jangle jangle. My point was that an assault rifle is hard to conceal and thus is a more likely target for thieves to take.

Also its really awesome that you swing so quickly from "every american should be provided with an assault rifle" to "every american is too dangerously stupid to be allowed any kind of gun" That's kind of like admitting you're wrong, but adding in an insult just so you dont have to completely fold. The problem is it's still absurd, and no one here will stand for it. Americans shouldn't have assault rifles, but not because we're all dimwits. Indeed it has more to do with the facts that we've been debating. You can either concede the argument or continue beating your dead well armed horse. What you're not allowed to do is throw in a complete non sequiter, claim that it settles the question, and then wander off.

For instance:

Americans don't need an AIDs Vaccine because cowboys are immune to aids already.
What's that you say? Not all Americans are cowboys?
Ok then, Americans need an AIDs vaccine but only because you're a bad person.

You see, the conclusion is right, but you're still taking a detour down fallacy boulevard to get there.

you would rather not try and prevent crime (through deterrence at least) but rather put all your hopes in the local police force.

No, no I would not. Ask me again when some convenient radioactive waste has spilled on me granting me the powers of an elk, the speed of an ant, and the senses of a buffalo, when I will be known as The Great Bufantelk, terror to all ne-er-do-wells. Until then I think the police can handle crime since that's, ya know, their job.

Arguing that everyone needs guns because the police dont always stop crime (either before or after it starts with your emphasis seeming to be on before) that we should all just start becoming assault rifle wielding vigilantes, is just madness. It's like saying that since not every nation always abides by international law, that we should just say screw it and everyone can fend for themselves.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 08 June 2008 - 10:32 PM

[Deucaon]

I argued that assault rifles would stem crime. I never argued that they were needed to stem crime.