Snipers shoot 12 cops, kill 5, at Black Lives Matter Protest

[Seth]

Seth, the moderation team has zero interest in your proclamations of what is or what is not a personal attack.

Simple as that.

And I have zero interest in anything you have to say about it. I know you don't want to hear the truth because it's inconvenient to you, but that's just too bad. There's nothing in the FUA about it being forbidden to discuss the definition of "personal attack." Just because it embarrasses you doesn't mean it's wrong.

It embarrasses you, champ, because you know very well that there is a distinction in the rules between calling someone a liar and saying they are lying about something. This has been the case in all the preceding fora, and it is still the case here. And you know this. So one can only assume you are trolling the mods again.

Er, it's not the fact that you implied I was lying about something that constitutes the offense,

Moving the goal posts it seems:

Not even a millimeter. The problem is that you are facing the wrong way on the field.

[Seth]

I didn't call you a Marxist,

You seem to have no shame in lying, do you?

If I lied, I might, but I didn't, so I don't.

[Hermit]

It's because you are not a Marxist. Which reminds me, it's lucky we are all avowed Marxists or one could say you are purposely impugnibg our characters by calling us all Marxists.

I didn't call you a Marxist,

You seem to have no shame in lying, do you? :

Therefore, I think it's more likely you're a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist who is simply dissembling about not being a Marxist

If I lied, I might, but I didn't, so I don't.

[pErvinalia]

I didn't call you a Marxist,

You seem to have no shame in lying, do you?

If I lied, I might, but I didn't, so I don't.

Wow, you really do have no shame. I just clearly showed where and how you lied, and you still deny it.

[pErvinalia]

It's because you are not a Marxist. Which reminds me, it's lucky we are all avowed Marxists or one could say you are purposely impugnibg our characters by calling us all Marxists.

I didn't call you a Marxist,

You seem to have no shame in lying, do you? :

Therefore, I think it's more likely you're a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist who is simply dissembling about not being a Marxist

If I lied, I might, but I didn't, so I don't.

Seth doesn't subscribe to the same reality as the rest of us.

[Seth]

I didn't call you a Marxist,

You seem to have no shame in lying, do you?

If I lied, I might, but I didn't, so I don't.

Wow, you really do have no shame. I just clearly showed where and how you lied, and you still deny it.

As you so aptly put it, I merely suggested that it's "more likely" that you're a Marxist, not that you are a Marxist. By your own argument that's not a lie, it's just an opinion.

Give it up. I'm going to use your tactics against you since it's been determined that they are within acceptable practice.

[Seth]

It's because you are not a Marxist. Which reminds me, it's lucky we are all avowed Marxists or one could say you are purposely impugnibg our characters by calling us all Marxists.

I didn't call you a Marxist,

You seem to have no shame in lying, do you? :

Therefore, I think it's more likely you're a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist who is simply dissembling about not being a Marxist

If I lied, I might, but I didn't, so I don't.

Seth doesn't subscribe to the same psychotic un-reality as the rest of us.

[rainbow]

It's because you are not a Marxist. Which reminds me, it's lucky we are all avowed Marxists or one could say you are purposely impugnibg our characters by calling us all Marxists.

I didn't call you a Marxist,

You seem to have no shame in lying, do you? :

Therefore, I think it's more likely you're a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist who is simply dissembling about not being a Marxist

If I lied, I might, but I didn't, so I don't.

Seth doesn't subscribe to the same psychotic un-reality as the rest of us.

Better red than dead.

[pErvinalia]

I didn't call you a Marxist,

You seem to have no shame in lying, do you?

If I lied, I might, but I didn't, so I don't.

Wow, you really do have no shame. I just clearly showed where and how you lied, and you still deny it.

As you so aptly put it, I merely suggested that it's "more likely" that you're a Marxist, not that you are a Marxist. By your own argument that's not a lie, it's just an opinion.

Give it up. I'm going to use your tactics against you since it's been determined that they are within acceptable practice.

You seemed to have missed the fact that I also only said it's "more likely" that you were a theme park rent-a-cop. You really need to start paying attention to what's going on. This is why you are always making a tit of yourself.

[Seth]

You seemed to have missed the fact that I also only said it's "more likely" that you were a theme park rent-a-cop. You really need to start paying attention to what's going on. This is why you are always making a tit of yourself.

Your arguments are getting more and more delusional. Take medication.

[rasetsu]

Conservativism is the principle that change qua change is irrational and that institutions, practices, principles, ideals and social mores exist and persist precisely because they have been tested by time and have evolved in useful and helpful ways for humans living in community...

Conservativism is the principle that change is irrational unless it's institutions, etc., that have changed in useful and helpful ways? How did these conservatives get so wise. That's bloody genius.

[Seth]

Conservativism is the principle that change qua change is irrational and that institutions, practices, principles, ideals and social mores exist and persist precisely because they have been tested by time and have evolved in useful and helpful ways for humans living in community...

Conservativism is the principle that change is irrational unless it's institutions, etc., that have changed in useful and helpful ways? How did these conservatives get so wise. That's bloody genius.

Indeed. The distinction is that liberals tend to militate for change qua change, change for the sake of change (as in Obama's deliberately vague campaign slogans and promises to "fundamentally transform" the United States...into what he did not say) because they object to some aspect of society that they feel is not "progressive" enough to suit their political goals, which are usually vague and ill-defined if they are in fact more than sloganeering.

Conservatives believe in taking a measured and careful approach to social change so that society isn't disrupted by knee-jerk ill-considered whims of people who are dissatisfied with something but are unable to articulate a rational reason for society to sympathize with them, much less can they articulate a rational plan to achieve a useful social outcome. Liberal complaints tend to focus on "I don't like that, let's change it" rather than proposing some problem that actually needs to be addressed and some change that might actually have meaning and purpose that is beneficial (and not harmful) to society and then being willing to modify their proposal by being willing to compromise with others.

Gun control is the quintessential example of the knee-jerk idiocy and unwillingness to compromise on the part of liberals. They want "universal background checks" and suggest that this will prevent terrorists and the insane from obtaining guns but they will not listen to reason when it's explained to them that what they want won't achieve what they suggest. Take California for example. It just enacted a law that prohibits someone from loaning a gun to anyone other than a family member without going through an expensive and time-consuming NICS background check. The stupid idea behind this is that this law will keep criminals and the insane from "borrowing" a gun from someone. The stupidity of this is obvious. First, a terrorist isn't going to submit to any sort of background check at all, and someone who is willing to provide a gun to a terrorist isn't going to do so either. Second, it's already a crime to give a gun to an insane person or a criminal or anyone you have reason to believe is going to use that gun to commit a crime. People who give guns to people who manifest an intent to commit a crime with that gun won't get a background check because they know it's already illegal for them to transfer the weapon. And anyone who is willing to knowingly sell or give a gun to a criminal or terrorist or insane person isn't likely to give them a gun that can be traced back to them. Such weapons are virtually always stolen, which makes it a crime to knowingly possess it in the first place.

So, the stated goal of "universal background checks" is not and cannot be achieved by the new law to any greater extent than existing laws "prevent" such people from getting guns.

Second, virtually ALL of the recent mass shootings have been perpetrated by people who obtained their guns pursuant to a NICS check, from a licensed dealer, or by stealing them. Thus, even a background check does not ensure that the person will not use the gun for criminal purposes. The Dallas shooter obtained his rifle in a non-NICS transaction eighteen months before the shootings, and he was, at the time, a military veteran who was not prohibited from buying a gun from a gun dealer. What this means is that it's not relevant that he got his gun in a private transaction without a background check because he could have gone to a dealer and gotten the weapon WITH a background check, which he would have passed, eighteen months before he decided to become a criminal and commit suicide by cop.

So, the stated purpose of "universal background checks" for all gun transfers would not have achieved the intended result.

Third, all such laws do is to infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens to buy and sell guns privately, and in the case of both California and Colorado, interfere with the right of two people who know each other to even temporarily trade or loan guns for perfectly lawful purposes like hunting or target shooting...or self defense... by making them criminals for doing so. Thus, if a friend of mine is being stalked by her ex-husband, a violent criminal offender who poses a genuine threat, it's illegal for me to give her one of my pistols to keep in her bedroom until she can get an emergency CCW permit and buy her own gun. Thus, she is rendered disarmed and helpless by a law that serves no useful purpose in obstructing my ability to go to her house in the middle of the night to loan her a gun because her ex is threatening to drop by and kill her and her children. Legally speaking, I would have to wait till business hours and go with her to a gun dealer (who might be hundreds of miles away) and go through a completely useless NICS check (useless because neither of us is debarred possession of a firearm and we both know it) before giving her a defensive firearm. She might well be dead by then.

According to the law in California, if I'm in the woods with a friend of mine and I'm carrying a gun and he isn't and I'm attacked by a bear, he is not legally able to pick up my gun and shoot the bear with it because he didn't first get a NICS check.

So, the stupidity of these laws is manifest. They are useless and achieve nothing but to interfere with the non-criminal transfer of legal firearms between persons legally qualified to possess them, but liberals enacted them anyway because they felt the urge to "do something" about terrorist shootings. Of course in fact they did nothing at all to prevent or lessen such threats, and much to make citizens more vulnerable and less able to defend against such threats.

Liberals are stupid motherfuckers who want change qua change and who don't care if the change is bad for society or if it harms others so long as their atavistic and antisocial liberal desires are fulfilled.

[rasetsu]

Conservativism is the principle that change qua change is irrational and that institutions, practices, principles, ideals and social mores exist and persist precisely because they have been tested by time and have evolved in useful and helpful ways for humans living in community...

Conservativism is the principle that change is irrational unless it's institutions, etc., that have changed in useful and helpful ways? How did these conservatives get so wise. That's bloody genius.

Indeed. The distinction is that liberals tend to militate for change qua change, change for the sake of change (as in Obama's deliberately vague campaign slogans and promises to "fundamentally transform" the United States...into what he did not say) because they object to some aspect of society that they feel is not "progressive" enough to suit their political goals, which are usually vague and ill-defined if they are in fact more than sloganeering.

Conservatives believe in taking a measured and careful approach to social change so that society isn't disrupted by knee-jerk ill-considered whims of people who are dissatisfied with something but are unable to articulate a rational reason for society to sympathize with them, much less can they articulate a rational plan to achieve a useful social outcome. Liberal complaints tend to focus on "I don't like that, let's change it" rather than proposing some problem that actually needs to be addressed and some change that might actually have meaning and purpose that is beneficial (and not harmful) to society and then being willing to modify their proposal by being willing to compromise with others.

Which boils down into wanting no change unless it's already proven itself good change, which it can't do if you don't enact the change first. So it's a recipe for no change. Conservatives tend to focus on "It's change, therefore it's bad."

Liberals are stupid motherfuckers who want change qua change and who don't care if the change is bad for society or if it harms others so long as their atavistic and antisocial liberal desires are fulfilled.

How quaint. If you really believe this then you are nuttier than I thought. Most liberals would consider this a misrepresentation of their motives and goals.

[JimC]

All Sethian political thought has been irreversibly warped by the worship of the sacred gun...

[Seth]

All Sethian political thought has been irreversibly warped by the worship of the sacred gun...

When you really need a gun, nothing else will do...