by BizzyBee 246 Replies latest members politics
<<<< It just requires education on your part. That's how I did it.>>>>
Hilarious. Now we have the fallacy of "appeal to authority"; EP is "educated," so therefore, he can't be wrong! However, the tactics he has used here are not indicative of an educated individual. Educated people usually do not need to resort to dishonesty to make their points.
Keep your mind on the topic EP, or we'll have to start a thread of our own
Hilarious. Now we have the fallacy of "appeal to authority"; EP is "educated," so therefore, he can't be wrong! However, the tactics he has used here are not indicative of an educated individual. Educated people usually do not need to resort to dishonesty to make their points.
Interesting. I have not appealed to myself as an authority (although I am on many things).
Yes, I agree on the education and dishonesty part, which is why it's no surpise you haven't realized how dishonest you were being by attempting to deny your own words. Education is the key! Get some. Ignorance is not funny and I feel a little guilty for laughing at you for it.
In any event, this isn't about me. I realize it's tempting to turn it that way when you can't answer questions or defend your ideas against questions on your ideas, but it's not about me.
If you have a defensible idea, please present it.
Has Gov. Chris Christie had enough and ready to jump ship to being an Independent or Conservative Democrat, his rant today against the NRA is very interesting.
" Yes, I agree on the education and dishonesty part, which is why it's no surpise you haven't realized how dishonest you were being by attempting to deny your own words." -- EP
So you want to continue, EP? Not enough people here are aware of your dishonest debate tactic of misrepresenting your opponents' statements, and then attacking your own misrepresentations? OK, here is your lie:
" You said you didn't want to pay taxes for other person's security." -- EP
I NEVER posted that, and you've NEVER been able to reference any post where I did. Instead, you tried to twist one of my posts to fit your lie:
" So maybe you should remember you own argument since I can quote it. You wrote: I have the same right to have my children in a school that does not have armed guards, and I also do not want to pay higher taxes to make you feel safe." -- EP
Note the use of the adjective "higher" preceding the word "taxes." Note also that nothing in the quote you provided states that I don't want to pay taxes for other person's security. I said I don't want to pay higher taxes to make "you" feel safe. That is dramatically different than saying I don't want to pay taxes for other person's security.
When I advised that only an idiot would be unable to determine that the higher taxes I didn't want to pay were for armed guards in schools, you acknowledged that you knew what I intended when I said that:
" Oh, I realize that, but safety is not limited to the narrow scope YOU want it be." - EP
So what you acknowledged is that your misrepresentation of my post was intentional.
They taught you well in the Kingdom Hall. "Theocratic Warfare" is still part of your arsenal, but you don't fool me. I find your dishonest tactics to be disgraceful, just like your callous disregard for the victims and families of the recent massacres.
I legally own several guns. You do not speak for me as a gun owner. You speak only for you.
He broke the law the moment he" pointed a gun at her, regardless of whether or not he pulled the trigger. This started with someone breaking the law and ended in tragedy."
So wait a minute. You are saying anyone who points a gun at someone is breaking the law - regardless of whether they pull the trigger? So what about all those people - aka the guy at the Oregon mall who claims to have stopped the shooter by showing his gun? To hear the guy talk, it seems as if he pointed and then hid because he wasn't sure of a shot - so I'm confused - if it's against the law to point a gun - every homeowner who points a gun at someone but doesn't fire is breaking the law? Interesting since a great many people claim that once they point their gun at a perp they think twice about what they were going to do. The guy at Giffords shooting pointed his gun at an innocent man and almost shot him by mistake but he wasn't arrested for breaking the law...so what gives? This is a new one to me - sammieswife
Entirely Possible, so do you feel that there is no problem with the gun laws in this country currently? Do you think that the proposal to require background checks for all gun purchases is not needed?
I NEVER posted that, and you've NEVER been able to reference any post where I did. Instead, you tried to twist one of my posts to fit your lie:
Except where you literally said " I also do not want to pay higher taxes to make you feel safe." If you need someone to explain your own words to you, just ask. My son is in elementary school, I am sure one of his teachers can tutor you. I will even pay. They will even teach you not to lie!
So what you acknowledged is that your misrepresentation of my post was intentional.
Of course not. I simply recognize that you don't have the capability to understand your own statement. Seriously, education would seriously help you to not misunderstant so many things. I mean it. I can get one of my kids teachers to tutor you if basic American English is too much. My treat.
So wait a minute. You are saying anyone who points a gun at someone is breaking the law - regardless of whether they pull the trigger?
Not, I didn't say that at all. Read it again to figure out where you went wrong. I won't bother reading the rest of your post since you opened with a swing and a miss.
