homersapien 11,513 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 What specific law are they blocking and how are they blocking it? Well, for starters, they are blocking the ability of the CDC from even collecting data on gun deaths. And they operate the same way other lobbyist's operate, via campaign contributions and - more importantly - working against legislators who support even common sense regulations. So now the NRA and Global Warming are causing ISIS? Wow, this would make a great book... If you are talking to me, I don't understand your response. Where did I suggest either of those things? Let's try to limit ourselves to what is actually written, instead of fanciful extrapolation, OK? Read what you posted...NRA's sick Jihad...the NYDN indicates that the NRA is responsible for this attack...you apparently believe it based on your posting...the female was an ISIS accolyte per police and the news agencies today...global warming caused ISIS (per your fearless leader and John Kerry)....ergo, the NRA and Global Warming caused this....keep up. I really don't care if you want to make up straw man arguments to rail against, just don't attribute them to me. you forgot to throw out your normal non sequitur when you didn't like how the debate was going. this thread was started discussing obama's statements on ISIS and it was turned around to the NRA, Gun Control and Congress action........someone should have thrown up the usual straw man / non sequitur remark earlier. I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Try again. (Quoting me might help.) Okay, I will "try" again because I realize my ramblings can be confusing. There is nothing to quote. My post was more an observation that when certain points are made you seem to refer to "straw man arguments" and "non sequitur" on a regular basis. I admit most of these comments follow a Raptor rant but this topic saw straw man arguments and non sequitur posts long before the last couple of posts. Well that's simple to address: I get a LOT of straw man arguments and non-sequitur statements as direct responses to my posts. (Typically by the same folks.) So why call them something other than what they are? And it has nothing to do with the "way the debate is going". There is no debate if you deliberately miss-characterize your opponent's argument. But then, most of the people on this forum are not interested in debate. They can't handle it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NC1406 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 What specific law are they blocking and how are they blocking it? Well, for starters, they are blocking the ability of the CDC from even collecting data on gun deaths. And they operate the same way other lobbyist's operate, via campaign contributions and - more importantly - working against legislators who support even common sense regulations. So now the NRA and Global Warming are causing ISIS? Wow, this would make a great book... If you are talking to me, I don't understand your response. Where did I suggest either of those things? Let's try to limit ourselves to what is actually written, instead of fanciful extrapolation, OK? Read what you posted...NRA's sick Jihad...the NYDN indicates that the NRA is responsible for this attack...you apparently believe it based on your posting...the female was an ISIS accolyte per police and the news agencies today...global warming caused ISIS (per your fearless leader and John Kerry)....ergo, the NRA and Global Warming caused this....keep up. I really don't care if you want to make up straw man arguments to rail against, just don't attribute them to me. you forgot to throw out your normal non sequitur when you didn't like how the debate was going. this thread was started discussing obama's statements on ISIS and it was turned around to the NRA, Gun Control and Congress action........someone should have thrown up the usual straw man / non sequitur remark earlier. I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Try again. (Quoting me might help.) Okay, I will "try" again because I realize my ramblings can be confusing. There is nothing to quote. My post was more an observation that when certain points are made you seem to refer to "straw man arguments" and "non sequitur" on a regular basis. I admit most of these comments follow a Raptor rant but this topic saw straw man arguments and non sequitur posts long before the last couple of posts. Well that's simple to address: I get a LOT of straw man arguments and non-sequitur statements as direct responses to my posts. (Typically by the same folks.) So why call them something other than what they are? And it has nothing to do with the "way the debate is going". There is no debate if you deliberately miss characterize your opponent's argument. But then, most of the people on this forum are not interested in debate. They can't handle it. I was referring to your selective use of these two terms. The terms were applicable to this thread....this thread has been derailed from the original post. Some did not want to debate the original topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NC1406 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Within 4 posts this discussion of Obama's statements went to wing nuts and gun control. No one called non sequitur or straw man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,513 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 What specific law are they blocking and how are they blocking it? Well, for starters, they are blocking the ability of the CDC from even collecting data on gun deaths. And they operate the same way other lobbyist's operate, via campaign contributions and - more importantly - working against legislators who support even common sense regulations. So now the NRA and Global Warming are causing ISIS? Wow, this would make a great book... If you are talking to me, I don't understand your response. Where did I suggest either of those things? Let's try to limit ourselves to what is actually written, instead of fanciful extrapolation, OK? Read what you posted...NRA's sick Jihad...the NYDN indicates that the NRA is responsible for this attack...you apparently believe it based on your posting...the female was an ISIS accolyte per police and the news agencies today...global warming caused ISIS (per your fearless leader and John Kerry)....ergo, the NRA and Global Warming caused this....keep up. I really don't care if you want to make up straw man arguments to rail against, just don't attribute them to me. you forgot to throw out your normal non sequitur when you didn't like how the debate was going. this thread was started discussing obama's statements on ISIS and it was turned around to the NRA, Gun Control and Congress action........someone should have thrown up the usual straw man / non sequitur remark earlier. I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Try again. (Quoting me might help.) Okay, I will "try" again because I realize my ramblings can be confusing. There is nothing to quote. My post was more an observation that when certain points are made you seem to refer to "straw man arguments" and "non sequitur" on a regular basis. I admit most of these comments follow a Raptor rant but this topic saw straw man arguments and non sequitur posts long before the last couple of posts. Well that's simple to address: I get a LOT of straw man arguments and non-sequitur statements as direct responses to my posts. (Typically by the same folks.) So why call them something other than what they are? And it has nothing to do with the "way the debate is going". There is no debate if you deliberately miss characterize your opponent's argument. But then, most of the people on this forum are not interested in debate. They can't handle it. I was referring to your selective use of these two terms. The terms were applicable to this thread....this thread has been derailed from the original post. Some did not want to debate the original topic. It's natural for threads to wander from the topic. Some more than others. But if someone is miss-representing something you said in any prior post, the original topic is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,513 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Within 4 posts this discussion of Obama's statements went to wing nuts and gun control. No one called non sequitur or straw man. Why should they? Changing the direction of a thread with a post can be a non sequitur, but generally there is an explicit or implied segue. Do you have a particular post in mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NC1406 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 What specific law are they blocking and how are they blocking it? Well, for starters, they are blocking the ability of the CDC from even collecting data on gun deaths. And they operate the same way other lobbyist's operate, via campaign contributions and - more importantly - working against legislators who support even common sense regulations. So now the NRA and Global Warming are causing ISIS? Wow, this would make a great book... If you are talking to me, I don't understand your response. Where did I suggest either of those things? Let's try to limit ourselves to what is actually written, instead of fanciful extrapolation, OK? Read what you posted...NRA's sick Jihad...the NYDN indicates that the NRA is responsible for this attack...you apparently believe it based on your posting...the female was an ISIS accolyte per police and the news agencies today...global warming caused ISIS (per your fearless leader and John Kerry)....ergo, the NRA and Global Warming caused this....keep up. I really don't care if you want to make up straw man arguments to rail against, just don't attribute them to me. you forgot to throw out your normal non sequitur when you didn't like how the debate was going. this thread was started discussing obama's statements on ISIS and it was turned around to the NRA, Gun Control and Congress action........someone should have thrown up the usual straw man / non sequitur remark earlier. I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Try again. (Quoting me might help.) Okay, I will "try" again because I realize my ramblings can be confusing. There is nothing to quote. My post was more an observation that when certain points are made you seem to refer to "straw man arguments" and "non sequitur" on a regular basis. I admit most of these comments follow a Raptor rant but this topic saw straw man arguments and non sequitur posts long before the last couple of posts. Well that's simple to address: I get a LOT of straw man arguments and non-sequitur statements as direct responses to my posts. (Typically by the same folks.) So why call them something other than what they are? And it has nothing to do with the "way the debate is going". There is no debate if you deliberately miss characterize your opponent's argument. But then, most of the people on this forum are not interested in debate. They can't handle it. I was referring to your selective use of these two terms. The terms were applicable to this thread....this thread has been derailed from the original post. Some did not want to debate the original topic. It's natural for threads to wander from the topic. Some more than others. But if someone is miss-representing something you said in any prior post, the original topic is irrelevant. Well okay then, it appears I don't participate enough to distinguish between when it's appropriate to wander from the topic and when it is not allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NC1406 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Within 4 posts this discussion of Obama's statements went to wing nuts and gun control. No one called non sequitur or straw man. Why should they? Changing the direction of a thread with a post can be a non sequitur, but generally there is an explicit or implied segue. Do you have a particular post in mind? I will make a note of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,513 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 What specific law are they blocking and how are they blocking it? Well, for starters, they are blocking the ability of the CDC from even collecting data on gun deaths. And they operate the same way other lobbyist's operate, via campaign contributions and - more importantly - working against legislators who support even common sense regulations. So now the NRA and Global Warming are causing ISIS? Wow, this would make a great book... If you are talking to me, I don't understand your response. Where did I suggest either of those things? Let's try to limit ourselves to what is actually written, instead of fanciful extrapolation, OK? Read what you posted...NRA's sick Jihad...the NYDN indicates that the NRA is responsible for this attack...you apparently believe it based on your posting...the female was an ISIS accolyte per police and the news agencies today...global warming caused ISIS (per your fearless leader and John Kerry)....ergo, the NRA and Global Warming caused this....keep up. I really don't care if you want to make up straw man arguments to rail against, just don't attribute them to me. you forgot to throw out your normal non sequitur when you didn't like how the debate was going. this thread was started discussing obama's statements on ISIS and it was turned around to the NRA, Gun Control and Congress action........someone should have thrown up the usual straw man / non sequitur remark earlier. I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Try again. (Quoting me might help.) Okay, I will "try" again because I realize my ramblings can be confusing. There is nothing to quote. My post was more an observation that when certain points are made you seem to refer to "straw man arguments" and "non sequitur" on a regular basis. I admit most of these comments follow a Raptor rant but this topic saw straw man arguments and non sequitur posts long before the last couple of posts. Well that's simple to address: I get a LOT of straw man arguments and non-sequitur statements as direct responses to my posts. (Typically by the same folks.) So why call them something other than what they are? And it has nothing to do with the "way the debate is going". There is no debate if you deliberately miss characterize your opponent's argument. But then, most of the people on this forum are not interested in debate. They can't handle it. I was referring to your selective use of these two terms. The terms were applicable to this thread....this thread has been derailed from the original post. Some did not want to debate the original topic. It's natural for threads to wander from the topic. Some more than others. But if someone is miss-representing something you said in any prior post, the original topic is irrelevant. Well okay then, it appears I don't participate enough to distinguish between when it's appropriate to wander from the topic and when it is not allowed. If you imagine that wondering from a thread topic is ever prohibited, then you really are a newbie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,513 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Within 4 posts this discussion of Obama's statements went to wing nuts and gun control. No one called non sequitur or straw man. Why should they? Changing the direction of a thread with a post can be a non sequitur, but generally there is an explicit or implied segue. Do you have a particular post in mind? I will make a note of that. No need to note it. Just observe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NC1406 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 What specific law are they blocking and how are they blocking it? Well, for starters, they are blocking the ability of the CDC from even collecting data on gun deaths. And they operate the same way other lobbyist's operate, via campaign contributions and - more importantly - working against legislators who support even common sense regulations. So now the NRA and Global Warming are causing ISIS? Wow, this would make a great book... If you are talking to me, I don't understand your response. Where did I suggest either of those things? Let's try to limit ourselves to what is actually written, instead of fanciful extrapolation, OK? Read what you posted...NRA's sick Jihad...the NYDN indicates that the NRA is responsible for this attack...you apparently believe it based on your posting...the female was an ISIS accolyte per police and the news agencies today...global warming caused ISIS (per your fearless leader and John Kerry)....ergo, the NRA and Global Warming caused this....keep up. I really don't care if you want to make up straw man arguments to rail against, just don't attribute them to me. you forgot to throw out your normal non sequitur when you didn't like how the debate was going. this thread was started discussing obama's statements on ISIS and it was turned around to the NRA, Gun Control and Congress action........someone should have thrown up the usual straw man / non sequitur remark earlier. I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Try again. (Quoting me might help.) Okay, I will "try" again because I realize my ramblings can be confusing. There is nothing to quote. My post was more an observation that when certain points are made you seem to refer to "straw man arguments" and "non sequitur" on a regular basis. I admit most of these comments follow a Raptor rant but this topic saw straw man arguments and non sequitur posts long before the last couple of posts. Well that's simple to address: I get a LOT of straw man arguments and non-sequitur statements as direct responses to my posts. (Typically by the same folks.) So why call them something other than what they are? And it has nothing to do with the "way the debate is going". There is no debate if you deliberately miss characterize your opponent's argument. But then, most of the people on this forum are not interested in debate. They can't handle it. I was referring to your selective use of these two terms. The terms were applicable to this thread....this thread has been derailed from the original post. Some did not want to debate the original topic. It's natural for threads to wander from the topic. Some more than others. But if someone is miss-representing something you said in any prior post, the original topic is irrelevant. Well okay then, it appears I don't participate enough to distinguish between when it's appropriate to wander from the topic and when it is not allowed. If you imagine that wondering from a thread topic is ever prohibited, then you really are a newbie. Not sure I am really a newbie as much as I only post occasionally when I need a break from work or I am just bored. Many of the posters here give a real good opportunity to vent.......sometimes I read and don't respond because I think many of us just ramble without any substance behind the words. It would be better if the discussions became more of a debate without the degeneration into the normal politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,513 Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 Not sure I am really a newbie as much as I only post occasionally when I need a break from work or I am just bored. Many of the posters here give a real good opportunity to vent.......sometimes I read and don't respond because I think many of us just ramble without any substance behind the words. It would be better if the discussions became more of a debate without the degeneration into the normal politics. Well, we agree on that. But like I said, most participants on this thread are not really interested in debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japantiger 4,052 Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 What specific law are they blocking and how are they blocking it? Well, for starters, they are blocking the ability of the CDC from even collecting data on gun deaths. And they operate the same way other lobbyist's operate, via campaign contributions and - more importantly - working against legislators who support even common sense regulations. So now the NRA and Global Warming are causing ISIS? Wow, this would make a great book... If you are talking to me, I don't understand your response. Where did I suggest either of those things? Let's try to limit ourselves to what is actually written, instead of fanciful extrapolation, OK? Read what you posted...NRA's sick Jihad...the NYDN indicates that the NRA is responsible for this attack...you apparently believe it based on your posting...the female was an ISIS accolyte per police and the news agencies today...global warming caused ISIS (per your fearless leader and John Kerry)....ergo, the NRA and Global Warming caused this....keep up. I really don't care if you want to make up straw man arguments to rail against, just don't attribute them to me. Oh, sorry Homey...so you don't believe that the NRA is responsible standing in the way of "common sense gun control" that is responsible for these killings? And you don't believe that ISIS is caused by Global Warming? If I incorrectly attributed this to you; then well I apologize...it just seems you supported the NYDN article...if not, pardon my inference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,481 Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 In America, you bomb a Church on 16th Street in B'ham, we as a society blame the people involved. We send them to jail. In America, someone gets shot for any reason by any person, it is not the person's fault, it is the gun's fault. There is a huge flaw in the reasonableness or logic of these thoughts. If you really want to know why we are here debating this? The Left got the Insane Slaughter of the Unborn. Babies are marginalized and called fetal matter and thrown in the trash or sold for profit. The Right got to keep their Guns. People dying everyday. Both are bad ideas. But you now what? This is where we are in American Politics. The Left cannot admit that they made a huge mistake with Abortion. So not the Right gets to do the same thing about guns. Please dont tell me you give a damn about the Life of the Unborn nor the Life of the Victims. The Elites in America dont really give a damn about anybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,513 Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 What specific law are they blocking and how are they blocking it? Well, for starters, they are blocking the ability of the CDC from even collecting data on gun deaths. And they operate the same way other lobbyist's operate, via campaign contributions and - more importantly - working against legislators who support even common sense regulations. So now the NRA and Global Warming are causing ISIS? Wow, this would make a great book... If you are talking to me, I don't understand your response. Where did I suggest either of those things? Let's try to limit ourselves to what is actually written, instead of fanciful extrapolation, OK? Read what you posted...NRA's sick Jihad...the NYDN indicates that the NRA is responsible for this attack...you apparently believe it based on your posting...the female was an ISIS accolyte per police and the news agencies today...global warming caused ISIS (per your fearless leader and John Kerry)....ergo, the NRA and Global Warming caused this....keep up. I really don't care if you want to make up straw man arguments to rail against, just don't attribute them to me. Oh, sorry Homey...so you don't believe that the NRA is responsible standing in the way of "common sense gun control" that is responsible for these killings? And you don't believe that ISIS is caused by Global Warming? If I incorrectly attributed this to you; then well I apologize...it just seems you supported the NYDN article...if not, pardon my inference. Yes the NRA is responsible for standing in the way of reasonable gun control. No I don't believe that "ISIS is caused by Global Warming". You'd have to be an idiot to infer anyone believes that. I do believe that AGW is and will be responsible for regional weather disasters that contribute to political instability however. Does that clear things up for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.