Why would anyone need an assault rifle?

[-fish- 11,863]

18 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

If you aren't also buying and planting lemongrass around your house to keep you safe from killer bees, then you are a hypocrite. 

Killer bees aren't dangerous.   Only criminal killer bees.   Without intent, there can be no danger.

[Ditkaless Wonders 15,540]

45 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Who knows what perspicacious means without looking it up? 

If you're trying to communicate with the masses, it's best to use language that the majority will understand. Otherwise, it appears that you're speaking in only to the elites. 

Well -fish-, for one.  Still I will take under advisement your counsel here and try to communicate in a more common idiomatic vernacular. 

[KCitons 4,145]

7 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Well -fish-, for one.  Still I will take under advisement your counsel here and try to communicate in a more common idiomatic vernacular. 

Don't bother. You and fish enjoy your conversations.

I will scroll on by your posts moving forward. 

[-fish- 11,863]

1 hour ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Well -fish-, for one.  Still I will take under advisement your counsel here and try to communicate in a more common idiomatic vernacular. 

As a student of English literature long before legal writing crippled my ability to write creatively, I appreciate the use of the mot juste.   It's not like the masses even need to refer to a dictionary anymore.   If they're too lazy to highlight and right click, they can't be all that interested in learning from a discussion anyway.    

In the words of Billy Joel, don't go changing.  

[KCitons 4,145]

1 hour ago, -fish- said:

As a student of English literature long before legal writing crippled my ability to write creatively, I appreciate the use of the mot juste.   It's not like the masses even need to refer to a dictionary anymore.   If they're too lazy to highlight and right click, they can't be all that interested in learning from a discussion anyway.    

In the words of Billy Joel, don't go changing.  

Now you want to determine what I learn, as well as what I post. 

 

 

[KarmaPolice 9,148]

I had the morbid curiosity to unignore for one post.  Didn't disappoint - "elitist echo chamber".  Good grief.  

[Encumbrance 134]

I don’t ignore anybody. Friendship = Magic.

[-fish- 11,863]

1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

I had the morbid curiosity to unignore for one post.  Didn't disappoint - "elitist echo chamber".  Good grief.  

Masochist.   

 

[KCitons 4,145]

For a group of people that complain about keeping things on topic, there sure is a lot of off topic banter about me. I'm flattered. I don't need to do the deflecting, you're all doing it for me. Keep up the good work. You may be book smart, but you don't have much common sense. 

[rockaction 15,243]

7 hours ago, KCitons said:

Now you want to determine what I learn, as well as what I post. 

I don't think that's what he's saying, KC. He's trying to tell you, albeit not-too-gently, that traditionally the onus is upon the listener or reader to look up words or ask the speaker what that means. It's a way of punching up, as it were, and it 's a pretty standard way to look at it. The onus is on the unlearned, not the learned. The learned have every right to use words that better fit a situation than a standard one. It's not to get at you or make you feel inadequate. It's to dance with language for a bit. 

In addition, I don't know what debates came before, but I'd post what you want and then let the other people tell you by deed what flies here. It's been a while since you've been here, and I can't remember you ever really getting it. Maybe it's time for a new board, or a new approach. I know I at least found a few friends with my personality here when I changed both approach and temperament. 

Anyway, I'm giving what I hope to be helpful advice. You seem like you're pouting a bit, and that's no way to make friends. Peace, man, rock

Edited July 25, 2019 by rockaction

[BigSteelThrill 4,734]

5 hours ago, KCitons said:

For a group of people that complain about keeping things on topic, there sure is a lot of off topic banter about me. I'm flattered. I don't need to do the deflecting, you're all doing it for me. Keep up the good work. You may be book smart, but you don't have much common sense. 

Its killing you and your vanity about it is showing.

[KCitons 4,145]

4 hours ago, BigSteelThrill said:

Its killing you and your vanity about it is showing.

Killing me? You guys give yourselves way more credit than you deserve. I've said before, I don't care what people here think of me. 

5 hours ago, rockaction said:

I don't think that's what he's saying, KC. He's trying to tell you, albeit not-too-gently, that traditionally the onus is upon the listener or reader to look up words or ask the speaker what that means. It's a way of punching up, as it were, and it 's a pretty standard way to look at it. The onus is on the unlearned, not the learned. The learned have every right to use words that better fit a situation than a standard one. It's not to get at you or make you feel inadequate. It's to dance with language for a bit. 

In addition, I don't know what debates came before, but I'd post what you want and then let the other people tell you by deed what flies here. It's been a while since you've been here, and I can't remember you ever really getting it. Maybe it's time for a new board, or a new approach. I know I at least found a few friends with my personality here when I changed both approach and temperament. 

Anyway, I'm giving what I hope to be helpful advice. You seem like you're pouting a bit, and that's no way to make friends. Peace, man, rock

The bolded sums things up. Many posters here have no problem advocating for people to be whatever they want to be. They preach for the rights of gays, minorities, immigrants, or those that kneel for the anthem. And now they get to tell others what flies here? That seems like some type of exclusive club? It sounds like I'll fit in as long as I agree with their stance? I'll pass. 

I get it. I understand how things work here. It doesn't mean I have to follow along. I've been here 10 years. I've seen the group mentality of the echo chamber in action. I've seen the bullying done by the group on this board. Multiple posters have come and gone. Forced out by the group. I have 14k posts. Not a single warning. Not a single ban. I don't attack people personally. I've been the target of hundreds of personal jabs. I know where the line is. I know how to walk those people to that line and then stop. That's what makes them angry. They can't control themselves. They can't stop at the line. It's conversations with me that has probably led to bans for some of these posters. They can't discuss within the rules, so they turn to censorship. Asking for me to be banned. Asking others to ignore me. Honestly, I find this much more entertaining than the actual conversations. It shows the lack of emotional intelligence.  (maybe there's a big word for that) I believe that they see some truth in my posts. To admit it, is to admit they were wrong (even a little bit) and that won't ever happen. This thread is exhibit A. Only one poster (DW) admitted that there could be a need for an assault rifle. Everyone else deflected (ironic) and made jokes. It's their vanity that's showing. 

Why would I go to a new board? If I surround myself with like minded people, my opportunity to learn something new is greatly diminished. I'm not pouting, I'm being myself. I'm not looking for friends. I'm posting my opinions on a random message board. I've never met anyone from this board, and have no plans to do so in the future. I didn't know that was a requirement for posting.

Thanks for the advice. I understand you're intentions and appreciate the effort. But, I'm good. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders 15,540]

15 hours ago, KCitons said:

Don't bother. You and fish enjoy your conversations.

I will scroll on by your posts moving forward. 

Understood.

[rockaction 15,243]

2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

The bolded sums things up. Many posters here have no problem advocating for people to be whatever they want to be. They preach for the rights of gays, minorities, immigrants, or those that kneel for the anthem. And now they get to tell others what flies here? That seems like some type of exclusive club? It sounds like I'll fit in as long as I agree with their stance? I'll pass. 

I get it. I understand how things work here. It doesn't mean I have to follow along. I've been here 10 years. I've seen the group mentality of the echo chamber in action. I've seen the bullying done by the group on this board. Multiple posters have come and gone. Forced out by the group. I have 14k posts. Not a single warning. Not a single ban. I don't attack people personally. I've been the target of hundreds of personal jabs. I know where the line is. I know how to walk those people to that line and then stop. That's what makes them angry. They can't control themselves. They can't stop at the line. It's conversations with me that has probably led to bans for some of these posters. They can't discuss within the rules, so they turn to censorship. Asking for me to be banned. Asking others to ignore me. Honestly, I find this much more entertaining than the actual conversations. It shows the lack of emotional intelligence.  (maybe there's a big word for that) I believe that they see some truth in my posts. To admit it, is to admit they were wrong (even a little bit) and that won't ever happen. This thread is exhibit A. Only one poster (DW) admitted that there could be a need for an assault rifle. Everyone else deflected (ironic) and made jokes. It's their vanity that's showing. 

Why would I go to a new board? If I surround myself with like minded people, my opportunity to learn something new is greatly diminished. I'm not pouting, I'm being myself. I'm not looking for friends. I'm posting my opinions on a random message board. I've never met anyone from this board, and have no plans to do so in the future. I didn't know that was a requirement for posting.

Thanks for the advice. I understand you're intentions and appreciate the effort. But, I'm good. 

Welp, cool. Best to ya. It took me a long time to figure out how to truly dissent while integrating. I wish you the best. 

[Stealthycat 1,306]

5 hours ago, rockaction said:

The onus is on the unlearned,

KCitons is now "unlearned" 

wow

 

understand, fish and his companions here will talk days on gun control ... and most haven't shot guns, they don't know anything about guns, don't own guns ..... they truly ARE unlearned but damn, they'll talk about banning 'em for hundreds of pages

aint that something ?

[rockaction 15,243]

Just now, Stealthycat said:

KCitons is now "unlearned" 

Well, in the vagaries of the perspicacious, yes.  

[KCitons 4,145]

3 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

KCitons is now "unlearned" 

wow

 

understand, fish and his companions here will talk days on gun control ... and most haven't shot guns, they don't know anything about guns, don't own guns ..... they truly ARE unlearned but damn, they'll talk about banning 'em for hundreds of pages

aint that something ?

I disagree with the bolded.

I haven't told anyone to stop talking about any aspect of gun control. Fish talks about the legal aspect. Which is fine. Where I take exception is when anyone states that their conversation is more important than any other. (and any requests to censor) As we've said over and over, this is a complex problem that will take a multi faceted approach to solve.  

As much as people hate my repeated analogies, how many times has Fish sited the Supreme Court ruling? So, it's not about how many times something is said, it's about what is being said. 

[KCitons 4,145]

10 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Welp, cool. Best to ya. It took me a long time to figure out how to truly dissent while integrating. I wish you the best. 

This is the difference between you and I. I'm not trying to figure out how to integrate. Our desires here are different. I think we come from opposite ends of the spectrum. Both on this board and in real life. I won't go into the specifics. I'm not going out of my way to personally hurt someone. I wish you all the best as well.

[rockaction 15,243]

19 minutes ago, KCitons said:

This is the difference between you and I. I'm not trying to figure out how to integrate. Our desires here are different. I think we come from opposite ends of the spectrum. Both on this board and in real life. I won't go into the specifics. I'm not going out of my way to personally hurt someone. I wish you all the best as well.

:laughs: KC, you can’t hurt me. Whatever I did, I already did to myself. And own it for those that are lucky enough to hear it. Anyway, good luck.

Edited July 25, 2019 by rockaction

[KCitons 4,145]

4 minutes ago, rockaction said:

:laughs: KC, you can’t hurt me. Whatever I did, I already did to myself. And own it for those that are lucky enough to hear it. Anyway, good luck.

As I said, I'm not here to personally attack anyone. Intentionally or unintentionally. 

I can't relate to the things you've done/do. And honestly, I don't agree with some of it. But, I do believe that it makes you the person you are today. I listen to the parts that advance me and leave the rest behind. I don't have you on ignore (obviously). I don't ask others to ignore your comments. And I don't ask for your banning from this board. (even though I'm pretty sure you've admitted to committing a crime in your posts) 

Live and let live. If my posts bother someone that much, it's on them, not me. As with you, there are things that make me the person I am today. 

[rockaction 15,243]

5 minutes ago, KCitons said:

As I said, I'm not here to personally attack anyone. Intentionally or unintentionally. 

I can't relate to the things you've done/do. And honestly, I don't agree with some of it. But, I do believe that it makes you the person you are today. I listen to the parts that advance me and leave the rest behind. I don't have you on ignore (obviously). I don't ask others to ignore your comments. And I don't ask for your banning from this board. (even though I'm pretty sure you've admitted to committing a crime in your posts) 

Live and let live. If my posts bother someone that much, it's on them, not me. As with you, there are things that make me the person I am today. 

Yeah, the constant reminders one is on ignore or to ignore, or the asking for banning? We could all do without that. That's not excellent in any way. That people have trouble with that basic decency is something that will surprise me always. But, much as you might not agree with what I do, I may not agree with them. Probably has something to do with upbringing in that way.

And indeed the stuff I began to talk about was a way of coping and making sure I knew why I was the person I am. It's rarely salacious or glamorized; it's often a stark reminder pf being very hurt or very close to death. Anyway, enough out of me. Take care.  

[KCitons 4,145]

I'm still amazed at the number of people that get angry by my comparison of gun regulation to other things. I've yet to hear any compelling argument as to why it doesn't matter. We compare a lot of things here everyday. The only reason to want to censor this discussion, is because it would require the anti-gun crowd to accept that fact that we don't ban all things that are dangerous. We had conversations here about what is an acceptable risk/reward. But, nobody wants to establish a data point as to what that should be acceptable. We know that people die in car accidents. People die from cigarettes. People die because of alcohol. But, for some reason, the same number of deaths caused by guns must be stopped immediately? 

[KCitons 4,145]

14 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Yeah, the constant reminders one is on ignore or to ignore, or the asking for banning? We could all do without that. That's not excellent in any way. That people have trouble with that basic decency is something that will surprise me always. But, much as you might not agree with what I do, I may not agree with them. Probably has something to do with upbringing in that way.

And indeed the stuff I began to talk about was a way of coping and making sure I knew why I was the person I am. It's rarely salacious or glamorized; it's often a stark reminder pf being very hurt or very close to death. Anyway, enough out of me. Take care.  

That's because they don't really want to ignore you. They want to take a passive aggressive approach towards dealing with you. They want to converse with you, but they don't want you to be able to converse back with them.  (which is why I continue to respond to any post that references me). 

 

[Stealthycat 1,306]

1 hour ago, KCitons said:

I disagree with the bolded.

 

I didn't word it right maybe ...

I just see the hypocrisy in saying someone is unlearned because of a rarely used word etc, but its not unlearned to spend hours and hundreds of posts/pages talking about something that truly, they know little about because they've never much shot guns, owned guns, had guns, been around guns ........ they literally ARE uneducated about guns 

that's what I was saying was all

[KCitons 4,145]

1 minute ago, Stealthycat said:

I didn't word it right maybe ...

I just see the hypocrisy in saying someone is unlearned because of a rarely used word etc, but its not unlearned to spend hours and hundreds of posts/pages talking about something that truly, they know little about because they've never much shot guns, owned guns, had guns, been around guns ........ they literally ARE uneducated about guns 

that's what I was saying was all

I understand the point you're trying to make. I am uneducated about the requirements to change the Constitution and the legal processes of the Supreme Court. It's just not part of my day to day life. It doesn't mean that I can't have an open mind and try to understand what others, who have that knowledge, are saying. I don't think it's reciprocated by those people that you label as "uneducated about guns."  It's why I use terms like agenda.

They aren't looking for solutions through compromise. They are aren't listening to, and more importantly, aren't respecting the opinions of gun owners. The fervor that has has grown around the stigma of guns has now given them the feeling that the end justifies the means. They no longer need to work towards compromise or even respect what someone has to say about gun ownership. We've seen the comments about blood on our hands, guns being our religion, or "gun nuts". 

 

[KarmaPolice 9,148]

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

I didn't word it right maybe ...

I just see the hypocrisy in saying someone is unlearned because of a rarely used word etc, but its not unlearned to spend hours and hundreds of posts/pages talking about something that truly, they know little about because they've never much shot guns, owned guns, had guns, been around guns ........ they literally ARE uneducated about guns 

that's what I was saying was all

Let's not pretend all knowledge is the same or that using something means that you understand laws or the stats behind it.   All of that knowledge needs to be brought to the table and weighed.  Gun users have a point that if somebody is talking about handling guns,  mods, stopping power, whatever - then a working knowledge of that is handy.   That said, you don't have to fire a gun to learn about some of that, but you probably should attempt to acquire some knowledge about that stuff if you are arguing about them.  

The flip side is true too - just because you use guns or have them in the house that doesn't mean you understand stats on incident rates, constitutional implications, or laws and regulations.  

I hope you aren't saying that only gun users should be talking about this issue or deciding things related to guns.  

[KCitons 4,145]

5 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Let's not pretend all knowledge is the same or that using something means that you understand laws or the stats behind it.   All of that knowledge needs to be brought to the table and weighed.  Gun users have a point that if somebody is talking about handling guns,  mods, stopping power, whatever - then a working knowledge of that is handy.   That said, you don't have to fire a gun to learn about some of that, but you probably should attempt to acquire some knowledge about that stuff if you are arguing about them.  

The flip side is true too - just because you use guns or have them in the house that doesn't mean you understand stats on incident rates, constitutional implications, or laws and regulations.  

I hope you aren't saying that only gun users should be talking about this issue or deciding things related to guns.  

No. 

I think there needs to be discussion from all involved. But, I would point out that there are people (like Tim) that don't understand the functional similarities between an AR15 and a Remington 7400. Some here would say "so what" or "ban them both". Shouldn't they strive to know the similarities and differences if they are wanting to ban something? Which is the same as someone saying it is my responsibility to understand Fish's vast vocabulary postings on the Supreme Court. 

[unckeyherb 1,149]

11 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Let's not pretend all knowledge is the same or that using something means that you understand laws or the stats behind it.   All of that knowledge needs to be brought to the table and weighed.  Gun users have a point that if somebody is talking about handling guns,  mods, stopping power, whatever - then a working knowledge of that is handy.   That said, you don't have to fire a gun to learn about some of that, but you probably should attempt to acquire some knowledge about that stuff if you are arguing about them.  

The flip side is true too - just because you use guns or have them in the house that doesn't mean you understand stats on incident rates, constitutional implications, or laws and regulations.  

I hope you aren't saying that only gun users should be talking about this issue or deciding things related to guns.  

Fair enough, but in the context of THIS thread, I'd argue that a working knowledge of guns in general and AR 15's specifically is vitally important.  Anyone can of course talk about the issue, but if a person states that an AR 15 is not necessary, while also having never fired any type of gun or being unable to accurately articulate the difference between varying types of firearms or frankly being unable to articulate what makes an "assault rifle" an "assault rifle", I personally give less credence to their opinion.  

 

ETA: looks like @KCitons is saying the same thing..

Edited July 25, 2019 by unckeyherb

[KarmaPolice 9,148]

4 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

Fair enough, but in the context of THIS thread, I'd argue that a working knowledge of guns in general and AR 15's specifically is vitally important.  Anyone can of course talk about the issue, but if a person states that an AR 15 is not necessary, while also having never fired any type of gun or being unable to accurately articulate the difference between varying types of firearms or frankly being unable to articulate what makes an "assault rifle" an "assault rifle", I personally give less credence to their opinion.  

 

ETA: looks like @KCitons is saying the same thing..

I get it.  Maybe I am lumping the threads together a little and your point is well taken.   

I feel the same way when people who don't smoke weed talk about banning all drugs.

 

[KCitons 4,145]

6 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

Fair enough, but in the context of THIS thread, I'd argue that a working knowledge of guns in general and AR 15's specifically is vitally important.  Anyone can of course talk about the issue, but if a person states that an AR 15 is not necessary, while also having never fired any type of gun or being unable to accurately articulate the difference between varying types of firearms or frankly being unable to articulate what makes an "assault rifle" an "assault rifle", I personally give less credence to their opinion.  

 

ETA: looks like @KCitons is saying the same thing..

In regards to this thread, you only need to refer to the conversation in the shooting thread. The reason behind an assault weapons ban is because the AR15 has been deemed as being the most effective killing machine available to the public. (I may not agree completely, but will cede for the purpose of this post). If that is to be accepted as true, then why wouldn't someone need an assault rifle to fend off multiple attackers? You can't have it both ways!

While researching home invasions, I found that this latest incident wasn't as much of an outlier as I originally thought. We want to define a mass shooting as an incident where 3 or more people are killed. I think we need to apply the same to home invasions where there are 3 or more perps. This would be apples to apples comparison for the effective use (or need) for an assault rifle. 

It's also been pointed out that you don't point a gun in self defense unless you intend to shoot to save your life. In doing so, you aren't trying to wound or disable the person that has put you in fear for your life. Basically, you shoot to kill. Why wouldn't you select the "deadliest" weapon to accomplish this?

[KCitons 4,145]

5 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I get it.  Maybe I am lumping the threads together a little and your point is well taken.   

I feel the same way when people who don't smoke weed talk about banning all drugs.

 

I don't smoke weed. I voted for Gary Johnson because I believe we should legalize weed. I do believe we should ban other drugs. 

I also want to point out that you have made a comparison to banning something that is not specifically about guns. I would expect the cavalry to be along any second now to tell you how ridiculous your analogy is. 

[-fish- 11,863]

4 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

KCitons is now "unlearned" 

wow

 

understand, fish and his companions here will talk days on gun control ... and most haven't shot guns, they don't know anything about guns, don't own guns ..... they truly ARE unlearned but damn, they'll talk about banning 'em for hundreds of pages

aint that something ?

Why do you always resort to lying?

[-fish- 11,863]

2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

I didn't word it right maybe ...

I just see the hypocrisy in saying someone is unlearned because of a rarely used word etc, but its not unlearned to spend hours and hundreds of posts/pages talking about something that truly, they know little about because they've never much shot guns, owned guns, had guns, been around guns ........ they literally ARE uneducated about guns 

that's what I was saying was all

Guess I’m qualified then since you are aware that I’ve owned guns.  I just got rid of mine when my daughter was born.  But you know that since we’ve discussed it before.  

You try so hard, and fail every time.  It’s sad that you can’t view facts objectively or think for yourself.  You just parrot talking points and repeat the same fallacies.   Another example of being unwilling or unable to learn from discussion.

[Stealthycat 1,306]

1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

Let's not pretend all knowledge is the same or that using something means that you understand laws or the stats behind it.   All of that knowledge needs to be brought to the table and weighed.  Gun users have a point that if somebody is talking about handling guns,  mods, stopping power, whatever - then a working knowledge of that is handy.   That said, you don't have to fire a gun to learn about some of that, but you probably should attempt to acquire some knowledge about that stuff if you are arguing about them.  

The flip side is true too - just because you use guns or have them in the house that doesn't mean you understand stats on incident rates, constitutional implications, or laws and regulations.  

I hope you aren't saying that only gun users should be talking about this issue or deciding things related to guns.  

and you can have a conversation that spans months and hundred of pages and not be called "unlearned" because a word not normally used is used

did you call that what it was or give bravo's for it ? 

[KCitons 4,145]

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

Guess I’m qualified then since you are aware that I’ve owned guns.  I just got rid of mine when my daughter was born.  But you know that since we’ve discussed it before.  

You try so hard, and fail every time.  It’s sad that you can’t view facts objectively or think for yourself.  You just parrot talking points and repeat the same fallacies.   Another example of being unwilling or unable to learn from discussion.

And yet you continue to engage him in conversation. You've called him a liar as many times as I've brought up alcohol as a comparison. Yet somehow you consider yourself the smart one.

And have me on ignore. 

[KCitons 4,145]

1 minute ago, Stealthycat said:

and you can have a conversation that spans months and hundred of pages and not be called "unlearned" because a word not normally used is used

did you call that what it was or give bravo's for it ? 

Let's be clear. @KarmaPolice won't be called unlearned. He believes whatever Fish tells him. 

[Stealthycat 1,306]

Just now, KCitons said:

And yet you continue to engage him in conversation. You've called him a liar as many times as I've brought up alcohol as a comparison. Yet somehow you consider yourself the smart one.

And have me on ignore. 

mod's let liberals call people names ...which is against forum rules .. where are the moderators ??

fish ignores so many common sense facts it makes it unbelievable to me he ever owned a gun at all ............. but I'm not going to call him a liar for it, that reflects on me doesn't it ? hmmmmm

 

 

[KarmaPolice 9,148]

8 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

and you can have a conversation that spans months and hundred of pages and not be called "unlearned" because a word not normally used is used

did you call that what it was or give bravo's for it ? 

I didn't post one way or the other about it.  I understood the context the word was used.  

Not everything is a conspiracy, lefty/righty, or echo chamber thing.  

[-fish- 11,863]

7 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

mod's let liberals call people names ...which is against forum rules .. where are the moderators ??

fish ignores so many common sense facts it makes it unbelievable to me he ever owned a gun at all ............. but I'm not going to call him a liar for it, that reflects on me doesn't it ? hmmmmm

 

 

What name have I called you?   I just continue to ask you to stop lying.  When you misrepresent objective facts, you’re lying.  That’s not name-calling.  It’s an objective truth.   When you resort to lying constantly, it just shows that you don’t have viable arguments to support your opinions.   You’re entitled to your opinions, however misguided they may be.   But you’re not entitled to make up facts to support them.

i know you’ll continue to lie about facts, and where I have the energy, I’ll continue to correct your lies.

[Stealthycat 1,306]

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

What name have I called you?   I just continue to ask you to stop lying.  When you misrepresent objective facts, you’re lying.  That’s not name-calling

its ok - I normally get livid for being called a liar

I don't with you anymore because you have zero significance in my world - call away I don't care. 

[KCitons 4,145]

3 minutes ago, -fish- said:

What name have I called you?   I just continue to ask you to stop lying.  When you misrepresent objective facts, you’re lying.  That’s not name-calling.  It’s an objective truth.   When you resort to lying constantly, it just shows that you don’t have viable arguments to support your opinions.   You’re entitled to your opinions, however misguided they may be.   But you’re not entitled to make up facts to support them.

i know you’ll continue to lie about facts, and where I have the energy, I’ll continue to correct your lies.

Based on your posts, this is a lie. 

At least we know that lying is better than bad analogies. 

[-fish- 11,863]

20 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

its ok - I normally get livid for being called a liar

I don't with you anymore because you have zero significance in my world - call away I don't care. 

Do you get called a liar frequently?   Maybe you should stop lying.

You lied twice on this page alone about my experience with gun ownership and my position regarding banning guns.   Why do you feel it is necessary to lie when you discuss gun control?  Is it because you realize that your positions don't hold up under factual scrutiny?

Edited July 25, 2019 by -fish-

[Ditkaless Wonders 15,540]

2 hours ago, -fish- said:

What name have I called you?   I just continue to ask you to stop lying.  When you misrepresent objective facts, you’re lying.  That’s not name-calling.  It’s an objective truth.   When you resort to lying constantly, it just shows that you don’t have viable arguments to support your opinions.   You’re entitled to your opinions, however misguided they may be.   But you’re not entitled to make up facts to support them.

i know you’ll continue to lie about facts, and where I have the energy, I’ll continue to correct your lies.

I believe to get matters riled up some more you could help by occasionally substituting "mendacious" or "prevaricating" in place of "Lying"  Give it some thought. 

[-fish- 11,863]

10 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I believe to get matters riled up some more you could help by occasionally substituting "mendacious" or "prevaricating" in place of "Lying"  Give it some thought. 

I worked "mendacity" into a motion a couple weeks ago.   The judge seemed to appreciate it, but the attorney who I directed it at did not.  

[rockaction 15,243]

16 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I believe to get matters riled up some more you could help by occasionally substituting "mendacious" or "prevaricating" in place of "Lying"  Give it some thought. 

DW, you're not exactly a peach, but you are one funny, smart dude.  

Edited July 25, 2019 by rockaction

[-fish- 11,863]

3 minutes ago, rockaction said:

DW, you're not exactly a peach, but you are one funny, smart dude.  

He's a mensch.

[rockaction 15,243]

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

He's a mensch.

I'll totally agree. I was adding a bit of levity to my fulminating praise.  

[-fish- 11,863]

5 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I'll totally agree. I was adding a bit of levity to my fulminating praise.  

Have to admit I had to look that one up.

[KCitons 4,145]

15 minutes ago, -fish- said:

I worked "mendacity" into a motion a couple weeks ago.   The judge seemed to appreciate it, but the attorney who I directed it at did not.  

You're this way in real life?

It makes sense now. 

[Hawkeye21 3,900]

5 minutes ago, KCitons said:

You're this way in real life?

It makes sense now. 

Educated?