Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 167
  1. #141
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    I see then if the claim isn't that the scenarios are plausible then there is little left to discuss! I misunderstood that we were discussing how 2A remains relevant and part of that support requires scenarios that are at least plausible. Finally!

  2. #142
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I see then if the claim isn't that the scenarios are plausible then there is little left to discuss! I misunderstood that we were discussing how 2A remains relevant and part of that support requires scenarios that are at least plausible. Finally!
    First off, we've been debating for days and many posts that the scenario is POSSIBLE and I've seen no supported arguments from you that show that it's not possible.

    And if you want to move the goalpost and argue that 2A is irrelevant because there are no plausible scenarios of it being relevant, then go ahead and argue that.

    And if you choose to not attempt to support that a 2A scenario is not possible or not plausible, then you need to drop your argument that 2A is irrelevant and move on to a different point.

    So if you feel you have nothing to discuss regarding the plausibility/possibility of 2A being irrelevant, then cease discussing it and move on to something else.

  3. #143
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, we've been debating for days and many posts that the scenario is POSSIBLE and I've seen no supported arguments from you that show that it's not possible.
    Well, that's because I can't say if it's possible or not possible because I don't understand what you're saying. You're practically accusing me of delaying the debate while all I was doing was asking for some simple clarifications as to what you even mean by your scenario. You also admitted that you would not do so because it would help my side of the argument when all I am doing is trying to understand what you're saying.

    And if you want to move the goalpost and argue that 2A is irrelevant because there are no plausible scenarios of it being relevant, then go ahead and argue that.
    Well, you're the one that raised the scenarios and not only did you refuse to explain some simple details as to what you even mean, it turns out that you're not even saying they are plausible scenarios to begin with.

    And if you choose to not attempt to support that a 2A scenario is not possible or not plausible, then you need to drop your argument that 2A is irrelevant and move on to a different point.
    I can't support someone else's poorly explained scenario though - that's not my burden to show that it is possible or plausible - it's yours! However, if you choose to forward a scenario then it is incumbent upon you to explain it in a way so that I can make such an assessment. If you don't want to stand by your scenarios then withdraw them!

    So if you feel you have nothing to discuss regarding the plausibility/possibility of 2A being irrelevant, then cease discussing it and move on to something else.
    You raised the issues for discussion so while they're still in play they need to be discussed. If you wish to withdraw the scenarios then please do so!

  4. #144
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, that's because I can't say if it's possible or not possible because I don't understand what you're saying. You're practically accusing me of delaying the debate while all I was doing was asking for some simple clarifications as to what you even mean by your scenario.
    Okay. What specific things do you need clarified?

  5. #145
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Why bother? Youíre not even forwarding a scenario that you can claim is plausible.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  6. #146
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Why bother?
    I figured you'd balk at providing me the specifics you require (because you always do) Please do not ask me for clarification again unless you also tell me what specific things you need clarified. I promise you that you will not get any additional information from me without specifying the particular information you need beforehand (and even then, no promises).

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You’re not even forwarding a scenario that you can claim is plausible.
    I most certainly can claim it's plausible. Watch me do it:

    The FCW scenario is plausible.


    And before you ask me to support or retract that claim, I will point out that it's YOUR argument that 2A is no longer relevant so the initial burden is on you. You will need to support that there are no plausible scenarios before I have any burden to support that there are. I'm just demonstrating that I can claim it's plausible.
    Last edited by mican333; May 15th, 2018 at 05:57 PM.

  7. #147
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I figured you'd balk at providing me the specifics you require (because you always do) Please do not ask me for clarification again unless you also tell me what specific things you need clarified. I promise you that you will not get any additional information from me without specifying the particular information you need beforehand (and even then, no promises).
    You appear to have forgotten that I have responded every single time you asked. Specifically what does your Tyrant do to be called a tyrant?

    Though I still donít understand why I have to help you fill in the details of your own (now plausible) scenario.

    I most certainly can claim it's plausible. Watch me do it:

    The FCW scenario is plausible.


    And before you ask me to support or retract that claim, I will point out that it's YOUR argument that 2A is no longer relevant so the initial burden is on you. You will need to support that there are no plausible scenarios before I have any burden to support that there are. I'm just demonstrating that I can claim it's plausible.
    Firstly, does that mean I get to call your Ďscenarioí a fantasy now that it is clear that you are asserting that your scenario is plausible?
    Secondly, unless you wholly withdraw your scenarios, we must continue with them. So please support or retract that your FCW scenario is plausible.
    Last edited by SharmaK; May 15th, 2018 at 08:45 PM.

  8. #148
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You appear to have forgotten that I have responded every single time you asked. Specifically what does your Tyrant do to be called a tyrant?
    I'm aware that you've asked me that but you never indicated that answering that question will give you all you need in order to consider my scenario sufficiently detailed.

    Question to opponent. So is me explaining what the tyrant does to become a tyrant fulfill your request for further detail? If not, what other detail(s) do you need?


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Firstly, does that mean I get to call your ‘scenario’ a fantasy now that it is clear that you are asserting that your scenario is plausible?
    No, you can't call it a fantasy until you have supported that it qualifies as a "fantasy'.

    In other words, you need to make some kind of argument that it semantically qualifies as a "fantasy". Typically one uses a dictionary to support semantic arguments.

  9. #149
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm aware that you've asked me that but you never indicated that answering that question will give you all you need in order to consider my scenario sufficiently detailed.

    Question to opponent. So is me explaining what the tyrant does to become a tyrant fulfill your request for further detail? If not, what other detail(s) do you need?
    Why do I need to tell you that? If youíre as vague as you have been on any other detail and work as hard to provide as little information as possible then I would have no choice but to ask further questions.

    I think itís perfectly reasonable to ask what kinds of scenarios you really have in mind or whether youíre just parroting some gun-supporting fantasy where they think theyíre going to save the world. As I keep pointing out, your lack of detail is not atypical of these kinds of arguments: and if you have no details to speak of then there really isnít much substance to them and we can relegate them into the dustbin of poor reasons why 2A needs to continue to exist.


    No, you can't call it a fantasy until you have supported that it qualifies as a "fantasy'.

    In other words, you need to make some kind of argument that it semantically qualifies as a "fantasy". Typically one uses a dictionary to support semantic arguments.
    This is the definition I am going off:
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fantasy

    an idea with no basis in reality.
    "it is a misleading fantasy to suggest that the bill can be implemented"
    I think I am allowed to say that my argument is that your scenario is a fantasy, given that you lack so little detail about particulars.

    Since you have yet to provide any basis in reality then I think itís fair to call it a fantasy. Right?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
    Last edited by SharmaK; May 15th, 2018 at 09:21 PM.

  10. #150
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Why do I need to tell you that?
    Because you said you are looking for "simple clarification" which means that there is a point or some points that you need clarified. If that is true, then you know what those points are and can easily share them with me. If you are unable tell me what points need to be clarified, then I have to conclude that you don't know yourself and therefore your claim that you are looking for clarification doesn't hold up.

    So I'm really just seeing if it's clarification that you seek. Dodging my request to tell me what you need clarified really makes it appear that you aren't really seeking clarification but have some different reason for asking for details.

    But I won't accuse you of false motive. It's up to you to back up your claim that you need clarification by letting me know SPECIFICALLY what you need clarified.

    So me providing those details requires you to tell me all of the details you need beforehand. This is non-negotiable.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    This is the definition I am going off:

    an idea with no basis in reality.

    I think I am allowed to say that my argument is that your scenario is a fantasy, given that you lack so little detail about particulars.
    Nope. The definition you provided says that a fantasy "has no basis in reality". There is nothing in the definition referring to lack of detail.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Since you have yet to provide any basis in reality then I think it’s fair to call it a fantasy. Right?
    I have provided four details. If you are going to argue that they don't have any basis in reality, you will need to support that. Otherwise, you have not shown that the scenario has no basis in reality and therefore cannot call it a "fantasy".

  11. #151
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Because you said you are looking for "simple clarification" which means that there is a point or some points that you need clarified. If that is true, then you know what those points are and can easily share them with me. If you are unable tell me what points need to be clarified, then I have to conclude that you don't know yourself and therefore your claim that you are looking for clarification doesn't hold up.

    So I'm really just seeing if it's clarification that you seek. Dodging my request to tell me what you need clarified really makes it appear that you aren't really seeking clarification but have some different reason for asking for details.

    But I won't accuse you of false motive. It's up to you to back up your claim that you need clarification by letting me know SPECIFICALLY what you need clarified.

    So me providing those details requires you to tell me all of the details you need beforehand. This is non-negotiable.
    Um. OK. So what did this tyrant do? Itís a basic question which, if you had a serious scenario, you should be able to answer.

    Iíve explicitly asked you multiple times so to say you donít know what specific problems I have had is totally false. Iíve already helped you along by summarizing your repeating arguments and I see a conscious effort to not do so any more. So I appreciate that.

    I have also funneled the discussion to simplify the narrative for both of us and we are currently just focused on the tyrant details so that we donít get bogged down with multiple points being discussed.

    I have also listed out the entire map of the debate multiple times:

    1. I need to establish what you even mean by tyrant. What did this guy do?
    2. I need to challenge how the tyrant, one that was voted by just over half the population, gets all of the government and only half the army and none of the citizens (the ones that voted him in, mind) on his side.
    3. Then I need to understand what you mean by half the army - the top half? the left half? WUT?
    4. Only then I say that you have a scenario that makes sense. One that has a decent basis in reality.
    5. Now we can begin to understand whether your scenario is credible. We can establish how plausible it really is, given what you have described.
    6. Then we can weigh it against the current loss of life that the 2A is currently allowing to happen.

    Thereís been no hidden agenda at all and unlike you, I have been forthcoming and honest about all the information required. If you donít have it, then thatís fine - I think that qualifies as a fantasy and we can remove it from play.

    Iím not the one saying this is possible or plausible and you appear now (finally) to be saying both. However, my point has always been that you havenít said enough about your scenarios to have anything to discuss. Much like your ghost discussion, you barely have anything to *for* serious debate.

    Youíre now just whining about having to provide information you should already have because you have some bizarre notion that somehow that helps me! No, more information means that you can be taken *more* seriously!

    To turn around and accuse me of poor play is frankly disgraceful given how much I have helped you in debating.

    Now just answer the question at hand and we can all see what you are talking about. Stop dodging and being fearful. If you are confident you have a good point then say it. If you have nothing then admit it. 99% of what weíve done in the last two weeks is you dodging your responsibility to show you have a case.

    It seems your fear of being asked more questions is driving the last week and your lack of confidence in your own scenario speaks volumes about its credibility. I have raised legitimate concerns with what you have put forward and helped you organize your thoughts to help me overcome my difficulty in understanding your scenario.

    I wonít ask the mods to nudge you forward since the record already shows youíre just dodging your debating obligations. But at some point *you* have to realize that you donít have a good argument here and we should move on to the next point.

    Nope. The definition you provided says that a fantasy "has no basis in reality". There is nothing in the definition referring to lack of detail.

    I have provided four details. If you are going to argue that they don't have any basis in reality, you will need to support that. Otherwise, you have not shown that the scenario has no basis in reality and therefore cannot call it a "fantasy".
    And what is this basis? You still havenít described what this tyrant did to be called such! Throwing a bunch of random ideas plucked out of some red-neck wet dream to save the world hardly qualifies as a ďbasis in realityĒ. You have to show what you even mean by those ideas, then you have to show how they can come about, and then establish how plausible they are.

    You havenít even described what you mean by a tyrant yet and thatís only one detail, a critical one mind, which is why Iím focusing on it first.
    Last edited by SharmaK; May 16th, 2018 at 03:45 AM.

  12. #152
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    1. I need to establish what you even mean by tyrant. What did this guy do?
    2. I need to challenge how the tyrant, one that was voted by just over half the population, gets all of the government and only half the army and none of the citizens (the ones that voted him in, mind) on his side.
    3. Then I need to understand what you mean by half the army - the top half? the left half? WUT?
    Okay. To be clear, once I give you those detail then you will have what you need to feel that my scenario is properly clarified and sufficiently detailed and you will cease claiming that my scenario is unclear and not sufficiently detailed. Agreed?


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    There’s been no hidden agenda at all and unlike you, I have been forthcoming and honest about all the information required.
    No you haven't. You never said "this is all of the information that I require". You haven't even said it now and have not guaranteed that once I give you the information above that that will be all of the information required and no more will be asked. So I take it by the context of that statement, that IS ALL OF THE INFORMATION REQUIRED. Right? Assuming you are indeed being honest you will either:

    1. Confirm that is all you need with a simple "yes"
    2. Tell me what other information you require in addition to what's here so I do know everything you need.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    If you don’t have it, then that’s fine - I think that qualifies as a fantasy and we can remove it from play.
    Then you are unclear on the definition of "fantasy". Again, there is nothing in the definition of fantasy that says "lack of detail".



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    And what is this basis? You still haven’t described what this tyrant did to be called such! Throwing a bunch of random ideas plucked out of some red-neck wet dream to save the world hardly qualifies as a “basis in reality”.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I plucked random ideas out of some red-neck wet dream to save the world to get the scenario.
    Last edited by mican333; May 16th, 2018 at 07:05 AM.

  13. #153
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Okay. To be clear, once I give you those detail then you will have what you need to feel that my scenario is properly clarified and sufficiently detailed and you will cease claiming that my scenario is unclear and not sufficiently detailed. Agreed?
    You should provide the information and in the spirit of a debating real things, we should go from there.


    Then you are unclear on the definition of "fantasy". Again, there is nothing in the definition of fantasy that says "lack of detail".
    Based on reality is the key phrase. In order to be based on reality you need information about said reality. Just throwing out some unknown tyrant out there is insufficient to determine that. You could just say itís an alien from outer space or some other nonsense that isnít technically impossible but hardly very likely either. So until that information is forthcoming it is fair to assume the possibility that you are forwarding such a crazy scenario. Only you can provide the details to link your claims to the real world.


    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that I plucked random ideas out of some red-neck wet dream to save the world to get the scenario.
    1. The same said lack of detail when discussing the same kind of scenario with a red-neck.
    2. Iím not saying you are but it is also possible that you are a red neck.
    3. This and your other invasion scenario is a common scenario that comes up quickly with these types of discussions.

    So either you came up with them yourself and possibly a red-neck. Or you got it from some other red neck via some other means.

    There may be some other possibilities but I think this is the best one that fits my experiences on debates of this kind.

  14. #154
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You should provide the information and in the spirit of a debating real things, we should go from there.
    Well, you didn't agree that that was what you needed to agree that my scenario is properly clarified. So you aren't directly stating what information you need and therefore I'm not going to provide it.

    This isn't difficult. Just tell me what specific details that you need in order to agree that sufficient details have been offered. BTW, this is the last time I'm going to ask. If you aren't forthcoming with ALL of the details that you need in your next post, then I will ignore any all further requests for details.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Based on reality is the key phrase. In order to be based on reality you need information about said reality.
    And I provide the information. Four details. You have not shown that the details don't correspond to reality and therefore cannot say that they are fantasy.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Just throwing out some unknown tyrant out there is insufficient to determine that. You could just say it’s an alien from outer space or some other nonsense that isn’t technically impossible but hardly very likely either. So until that information is forthcoming it is fair to assume the possibility that you are forwarding such a crazy scenario.
    No it's not. If I don't provide a specific type of tyrant, then it could be referring to any kind of tyrant, including ones that resemble tyrants that definitely existed (such as Hitler). Since tyrants are a real thing, one cannot say that an unspecified tyrant is a someone that is unrealistic.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    1. The same said lack of detail when discussing the same kind of scenario with a red-neck.
    2. I’m not saying you are but it is also possible that you are a red neck.
    3. This and your other invasion scenario is a common scenario that comes up quickly with these types of discussions.

    So either you came up with them yourself and possibly a red-neck. Or you got it from some other red neck via some other means.
    Well, the reality is that I came up with it myself and I'm not a red neck. If you are going to argue that the reality is different than what I just said, you will need to support that.

  15. #155
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, you didn't agree that that was what you needed to agree that my scenario is properly clarified. So you aren't directly stating what information you need and therefore I'm not going to provide it.
    How am I supposed to know hat ALL the information is unless I see what youíve said. I have problems with all your existing details, but remember (please!) that weíre working on just the tyrant aspect.

    I donít know why youíre being evasive, spending more time not answering pertinent questions rather than moving the debate forward. You have a ton of work to do before you can get your scenario off the ground, never mind some serious issues with itís internal logic and how ultimately it helps my case more than yours.

    Personally, Iíd give up on it but I learn a lot about you as you dodge and weave and dance like a ghostly lady of smoke and mirrors. There with an argument one minute and it disappears as soon as you look.

    This isn't difficult. Just tell me what specific details that you need in order to agree that sufficient details have been offered. BTW, this is the last time I'm going to ask. If you aren't forthcoming with ALL of the details that you need in your next post, then I will ignore any all further requests for details.
    Tell me what you mean by tyrant - what did he do and how did he get the power to do it?

    And I provide the information. Four details. You have not shown that the details don't correspond to reality and therefore cannot say that they are fantasy.
    Shifting the burden - youíre the one claiming that your scenario comports to reality right? I mean, thatís the reason youíre raising it in the first place. Or is it really the fantasy that Iíve been saying all along?

    No it's not. If I don't provide a specific type of tyrant, then it could be referring to any kind of tyrant, including ones that resemble tyrants that definitely existed (such as Hitler). Since tyrants are a real thing, one cannot say that an unspecified tyrant is a someone that is unrealistic.
    So youíre saying that the tyrant is like Hitler in your scenario?

    Well, the reality is that I came up with it myself and I'm not a red neck. If you are going to argue that the reality is different than what I just said, you will need to support that.
    Better a red-neck lady than a fantasist that canít back up their stories. At least a red-neck would actually know when to stop!


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  16. #156
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    How am I supposed to know hat ALL the information is unless I see what you’ve said.
    Forget it. I'm not giving you any further details.

    I have no burden to give you further details and the ONLY reason I even considered doing it was because I thought it would move the debate forward. But I think if you were going to tell me what specific details you will need, I would have gotten it by now. So I'm not going to waste my time asking.

    You should proceed your debating with the knowledge that the four details I've given regarding the FCW scenario is all I will ever give.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Shifting the burden - you’re the one claiming that your scenario comports to reality right?
    WRONG. You claimed that my scenario is fantasy. You chose the definition of "fantasy" that you are using to support your claim. Therefore you are claiming that my scenario does not comport with reality. So it's your burden, not mine.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So you’re saying that the tyrant is like Hitler in your scenario?
    Not necessarily. I'm saying that the concept of a tyrant does comport with reality and supporting that by providing an example that existed in reality. I mean you do agree that tyrants are real, right? And therefore positing that a tyrant will exist in the future is hardly an unrealistic possibility, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Better a red-neck lady than a fantasist that can’t back up their stories. At least a red-neck would actually know when to stop!
    Hey look! More personal comments and put-downs! And even more wildly inaccurate assessments of my debating.

    Well, at least you're consistent.

  17. #157
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Forget it. I'm not giving you any further details.
    Then I have to consider the scenario retracted. Whatís next?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  18. #158
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Then I have to consider the scenario retracted. What’s next?
    Again, something is retracted when I retract it, not when you consider it retracted. Again, you considering the Earth to be flat doesn't stop it from being round.

    It is not retracted and you have provided no SUPPORTED argument that it's unrealistic or implausible or impossible or a fantasy or even insufficiently detailed (as your claims that it lacks necessary detail has never been based on anything but your opinion that that is so).

  19. #159
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Again, something is retracted when I retract it, not when you consider it retracted. Again, you considering the Earth to be flat doesn't stop it from being round.

    It is not retracted and you have provided no SUPPORTED argument that it's unrealistic or implausible or impossible or a fantasy or even insufficiently detailed (as your claims that it lacks necessary detail has never been based on anything but your opinion that that is so).
    You can think whatever you want. I said I consider it retracted and have no need to discuss that point any further. Do you have anything else you want to move on to?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  20. #160
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You can think whatever you want. I said I consider it retracted and have no need to discuss that point any further.
    Well, if you are dropping your argument that 2A is irrelevant, then you certainly have no need to discuss whether a scenario may occur in the future where 2As rights are relevant. And in that case I would have no need to argue that the scenario is possible, so I would retract it (by not repeating it).

    So assuming you do want me to retract it and you want to move on to something else, you just need to retract that position that 2A is irrelevant.

    And really, you've made LOTS of arguments that don't require 2A being irrelevant to be valid (along the lines of even if there might be a scenario where 2A is relevant, the numbers of deaths that occur by continuing to have 2A outweigh it).

    So it's up to you if it's retracted and if we move on.

 

 
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. There is no tenable stance against gay marriage
    By Zhavric in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 207
    Last Post: August 2nd, 2011, 09:57 AM
  2. Your stance on overpopulation
    By Xanadu Moo in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: August 13th, 2007, 08:11 AM
  3. Something from nothing: the THEIST stance.
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: May 16th, 2007, 07:27 AM
  4. Abortion Stance
    By Meng Bomin in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: October 21st, 2004, 09:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •