At which point the same old question: how illiterate or otherwise unable to comprehend English prose are we supposed to assume you are?
Because any ascription of innocence to this kind of posting from you depends on quite a load of such assumption.
(
chortle!)
You wrote what you wrote, and all you can do is say things like, "How illiterate", and so forth, but you can't actually argue your point.
No, I didn't.
That entire mistake on your part is irrelevant here.
Yeah, you know, you could always try, after these years, some manner of explanation instead of petulant insistence on observable untruth.
For instance,
I linked↑ to
your original post↗; I do owe a correction, though, having noted
#3495188/343↗, when the proper attribution is
#3492757/200↗; my apologies for the error, which would, admittedly, have been avoided if you were honest, and not so determined to lie about what you wrote, as you did on 14 December 2017, responding:
Followed by a quote from you. That from the lecturer on irony?
Your posts really are, as you illustrate by quoting not me but yourself, pretty much as worst described.
So when you say you did not attribute a post to me, you are lying.
I've been clear and explicit about what I consider politically threatening in you guys's shitheaded rhetoric and slipshod reasoning ....
You lied, Iceaura, so please do remember that
what you
consider politically threatening, or
shitheaded rhetoric and slipshod reasoning, is a standard asserted in the context of one who needs to blame his own posts on other people in order to duck out. That is to say, your is an assessment fashioned in dishonesty and cowardice.
You wrote a post. The post became relevant down the line because of its intersection with particular issues. You denied the post and tried to attribute it to others—(
"Followed by a quote from you";
"by quoting not me but yourself")—and that was as obvious and clear as day.
PJdude↑ isn't wrong about your immoderate position; the
expanded version↑ rings familiarly, too. And while I'm as certain as today's sunlight that you will find plenty to dispute in his summary, it just seems worth noting that the record you leave creates certain impressions about how you address the issues, so I find myself reiterating that this is one of a couple issues where you just switch into automatic mode and start shoveling out the unbelievable, issues about which you appear to fall back to an internal narrative that only makes sense to you.
Meanwhile:
No, it isn't.
It is designed to highlight the fact that you have no answer.
This comes back to what definitions are required by an unreliable arbiter—
Your entire line of bs is exactly as described - one side of a bothsides problem, a real life situation in which "both sides" (self described) are untrustworthy wingnuts dealing in symmetrically whack rhetoric and symmetrically deluded presumptions, threatening and dividing a sober and reasonable majority of the citizenry, paralyzing the political arena.
—and you need to #startmakingsense. As I said,
an internal narrative that only makes sense to you. That is, I'm quite certain that ranting bit means
something to you, but the fact remains that whether or not one can be said to "have no answer" depends entirely on matters of definitions. Your demand, for instance, in
#44↑—
Name the first. Name the first reasonable and sound gun control regulation that actually and necessarily ran foul of the 2nd Amendment. Not via NRA agitprop - they're raving extremists in the service of amoral power, nuttier than a fruitcake, remember? - but in the sober assessment of people making sense.
—relies entirely on your own internal narrative that ignores or invalidates anything anyone else says that fails to satisfy or properly assuage your aesthetics. For instance, you either ignore a court decision pertaining to the Second Amendment, or disqualify it from your amorphous standard of "reasonable and sound gun control regulation", which in turn points back to your
exhortation on behalf of stalkers↗, because therein we find at least something about what you consider reasonable and sound.
And that needlessly obscure (or deliberately deceptive, in its inaccurate "receiving" and "framework") sentence is supposed to conflict with my posting? Because it doesn't, see. And that fact that it's supposed to appear as if it does is a symptom, an indication, a field mark, of what you are doing here.
Do you have anything to offer other than the bitter conspiracist imaginings of a liar?
So what are you trying to do?
You cannot hope to persuade in this manner. You intensify mistrust with this utterly corrupt manner of assault in place of argumentation. What do you hope to achieve?
Because this is no way to get reasonable gun control. Too many reasonable people are going to refuse to grant political power to people who talk and behave as you have here. They refused in the past, and they will in the future. You are discarding reason. And when you do that what you win, if you win, is not what reason would recommend.
There are certain things that happen to one's arguments when they roll to the conservative pitch. There is no mystery why people regard the Second Amendment as a question in this. I would ask you to think about something "Republicans" and "conservatives" do; it's a bizarre equivocation that does indeed have its place in societal noramlization presupposing "both-sides" rhetoric:
After all these years of saying this is why we conservatives won't, why would anyone be wondering about this thing that we say is the reason why we conservatives won't? Too many reasonable people are going to refuse to grant political power to people who take us conservatives seriously enough to pretend the reasons we say we conservatives won't have anything to do with anything.
And there comes a point at which people would very much like to take them seriously on that point, but as you're quite aware from witnessing discourse regarding other issues, the societal penchant for pretense of equivocation generally benefits the preservation of imbalance. Whatever your stake in preserving this particular
status quo, people still notice when you start pandering and, thus, floundering, like the next two-bit gun cultist society does not seem to be willing to endure at the moment. Giving over to screeching kill-cult identity politicking is the sort of bad decision that costs our society more lives than war.
Ultimately Cheaper and less life threatening. No guns allowed.
