It ok to put a bullet in a persons skull, but not ok if you can't fix your computer??

[parmalee]

Wait. What? The "bullet in the skull" is referring to forum members here? Not distant political targets?
That's not cool.

I'd advise looking at the original post for some context here--this idiot's not gonna provide any. Not sure he knows how to incorporate links into posts.

Trump 2.0

We’d need to adopt the Euro. But short of rejoining we could rejoin the Single Market. After all, the Brexshitters originally promised us we could stay in that. It was only later that the idea was hijacked by Rees Mogg - and that Einsteinian intellect Mark Gino François and his mates in the...

www.sciforums.com

 

[DaveC426913]

I'd advise looking at the original post for some context here--this idiot's not gonna provide any. Not sure he knows how to incorporate links into posts.

Or you could tell me. I get the impression it's riffing off a comment you made.

 

[parmalee]

Or you could tell me. I get the impression it's riffing off a comment you made.

See edit--I included the link.

Too annoyed with this guy to elaborate at length in this moment.

 

[DaveC426913]

If that question is coming from a presumably semi-intelligent adult (Trump, Musk, the GOP, certain posters here), that person doesn't need a sincere response, i.e., "conversation", that person needs a bullet in their skull--and that is not hyperbole.

Ahhh, I see it now.

 

[foghorn]

Wait. What? The "bullet in the skull" is referring to forum members here? Not distant political targets? That's not cool.

I have shown this quote in this thread. but here it is again...
see all my bold below

If that question is coming from a presumably semi-intelligent adult (Trump, Musk, the GOP, certain posters here), that person doesn't need a sincere response, i.e., "conversation", that person needs a bullet in their skull--and that is not hyperbole. Such persons are dangerous, antisocial, legitimate existential threats, and they ought be treated accordingly--and I can guarantee you that a lot of people will suffer and/or die needlessly as a consequence of eliminating or disrupting the administrative state. That's my justification for such an assertion.

That probably sounds heavy-handed, or a bit much, to some. To them I say, Seriously?

 

[parmalee]

Ahhh, I see it now.

Yeah, the idea being that people who knowingly say and do things which put others at risk, again and again, should be dead. I stand by that: it's dangerous, it's antisocial, it's irresponsible, and it gets people killed. I can't even work out what foghorns seems to think it means, but it is what it is--namely, an opinion.

 

[DaveC426913]

Got it. You're explicitly imploring at least one member here in the forum take a bullet to the head. And in case we think you're hyperbolizing - you assure us you are not.

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/trump-2-0.166697/post-3749811

"If that question is coming from a presumably semi-intelligent adult (Trump, Musk, the GOP, certain posters here), that person doesn't need a sincere response, i.e., "conversation", that person needs a bullet in their skull--and that is not hyperbole."


And in case that is not enough, you go on to say how if you were intent on (and I quote) "committing murder", you would not be stopped by not having a licence:

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/i...ou-cant-fix-your-computer.166771/post-3752447

I think it's worse that you don't name your targets explicitly - it could be anyone who disagrees with you. What if it's me?

Reported.

Also blocked.

Also, please don't let me be one that you "put a bullet in my head" if you decide to "commit murder" against "ceriain posters here".


Wait. Weren't you the one that was complaining a while back about being unfairly moderated? I take it you see now how it's not "unfair" at all?

 

[parmalee]

Got it. You're explicitly imploring at least one member here in the forum take a bullet to the head. And in case we think you're hyperbolizing - you assure us you are not.

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/trump-2-0.166697/post-3749811

"If that question is coming from a presumably semi-intelligent adult (Trump, Musk, the GOP, certain posters here), that person doesn't need a sincere response, i.e., "conversation", that person needs a bullet in their skull--and that is not hyperbole."

Yep. I said that I think dangerous people ought to die. So what?

And in case that is not enough, you go on to say how if you were intent on (and I quote) "committing murder", you would not be stopped by not having a licence:

Right. Do you believe that most murderers concern themselves with obtaining things like proper licensing?. Explain you reasoning, if "yes".

 

[parmalee]

I think it's worse that you don't name your targets explicitly - it could be anyone who disagrees with you. What if it's me?

Reported.

Also blocked.

Also, please don't let me be one that you "put a bullet in my head" if you decide to "commit murder" against "ceriain posters here".

My "targets"? Where exactly did I make an actual threat, or state any intention? You do understand hypotheticals and opinions, yes?

Reporting this for making such accusations.

 

[DaveC426913]

My "targets"? Where exactly did I make an actual threat, or state any intention?

I explicitly quoted you inciting explicit lethal violence to certian members here, and further saying not having a license would not stop you from committing murder.

You do understand hypotheticals

1. You explictly said "not hyperbole". In other words, you meant it literally, not an exaggeration.
2. And you mentioned "certain members here". That is not hypothetical. That means everyone here should be worried. foghorn should be worried. James should be worried. I should be worried.

and opinions, yes?

You are not allowed to express opinions that online members be murdered - including the implication that you have the means - without there being consequences. Not in this day and age.

Reporting this for making such accusations.

Way ahread of you. It will get sorted out, don't you worry.

Weren't you the one that was complaining a while back about being unfairly moderated? I take it you see now how it's not "unfair" at all?


I otherwise have (or had) nothing against you, but this utterly unacceptable behaviour. It may even rise to the level of legally actionable if the authorities got wind of it.

 

[parmalee]

I explicitly quoted you inciting explicit lethal violence to certian members here, and further saying not having a license would not stop you from committing murder.


1. You explictly said "not hyperbole". In other words, you meant it literally, not an exaggeration.
2. And you mentioned "certain members here". That is not hypothetical. That means everyone here should be worried. foghorn should be worried. James should be worried. I should be worried.


You are not allowed to express opinions that online members be murdered without there being consequences. Not in this day and age.


Way ahread of you. It will get sorted out, don't you worry.

Weren't you the one that was complaining a while back about being unfairly moderated? I take it you see now how it's not "unfair" at all?


I otherwise have (or had) nothing against you, but this utterly unacceptable behaviour. It may even rise to the level of legally actionable if the authorities got wind of it.

Uh, Dave, it was sorted out months ago. I think you need to re-read the original passage in the Trump 2.0 thread.

 

[parmalee]

You are not allowed to express opinions that online members be murdered - including the implication that you have the means - without there being consequences. Not in this day and age.

You absolutely are allowed to say that some people deserve to die, need to die, anything of that sort--maybe not on this forum, but in general, yes. This "murder" part is your fabrication, and there is certainly no "incitement" or anything of that nature.

Also, can you explain to me why someone (not me--re-read the post) who intended to commit murder would concern themselves with obtaining licenses--they're already committing a crime that kinda surpasses the gravity of licensing concerns.

And what implication are you talking about? I "Have the means"--what the hell are you talking about?

 

[parmalee]

I explicitly quoted you inciting explicit lethal violence to certian members here, and further saying not having a license would not stop you from committing murder.

I sad nothing of the sort--re-read the exchanges.

Reported again.

 

[parmalee]

Also, as far as nonsensicality goes, there's this:

"If you remove language from the equation."

Of course, maybe the full quote would help?

"(I)f you remove language from the equation, sociopathic qualities largely diminish."

Some people are struggling for reasons I can't even begin to comprehend, so I'll expand on that:

Most (all?) people have some sociopathic attributes--some say shitty things, some do shitty things, and some do both. So when dealing with the first variety, if you remove language from the equation, sociopathic qualities largely diminish--cuz there's virtually no shitty doing. Real hard to work out, that was. Jesus. But the underlying point there is that I mostly say shitty things--cuz I've never hit anyone or done anything of that sort. Not virtuous or anything, just lazy maybe?

So what does that passage have to do with anything? I've no clue.

 

[Tiassa]

You're explicitly imploring at least one member here in the forum take a bullet to the head. And in case we think you're hyperbolizing - you assure us you are not.

Well, it would, as such, appear that you're endorsing fraud, bad faith, and so on, even when it results in death.

Look at what everybody is quoting: "If that question is coming from a presumably semi-intelligent adult (Trump, Musk, the GOP, certain posters here), that person doesn't need a sincere response, i.e., 'conversation', that person needs a bullet in their skull--and that is not hyperbole."

Okay, you're on: If what question?

Now, any of us can look it up:

This is where I differ greatly from many/most modern leftists and left-leaning folks. Suppose someone asks the following question:

"Why do we need speed limits and traffic lights?"

If that question is coming from a 7 or 8 year old kid, then it warrants a sincere, patient and thorough response. It's a fair question, coming from a little kid.

If that question is coming from a presumably semi-intelligent adult (Trump, Musk, the GOP, certain posters here), that person doesn't need a sincere response, i.e., "conversation", that person needs a bullet in their skull--and that is not hyperbole. Such persons are dangerous, antisocial, legitimate existential threats, and they ought be treated accordingly--and I can guarantee you that a lot of people will suffer and/or die needlessly as a consequence of eliminating or disrupting the administrative state. That's my justification for such an assertion.

So, who asked that question, Dave?

Because what was it you said?

I think it's worse that you don't name your targets explicitly - it could be anyone who disagrees with you. What if it's me?

Who, Dave?

"Explicitly" who, Dave?

 

[Mr. G]

I am heartened that this debate is taking place herein.

Although you each think irrationally in a particular moment, I'm encouraged that y'all seem to want to find the place/source of rationality.

To overcome your public education that has made your journey way too arduous.

I hang out here to watch the future of us heal itself, because you can.

 

[Mr. G]

I don't need to be liked.

Just maybe hear my voice, sometimes.

Yeah, I'm capable of trolling for sport, but I'm also capable of occasionally having your best interest in mind.

 

[(Q)]

I don't need to be liked.

You certainly appear as if you need to be hated and despised for some unknown reason. Why is that?

Just maybe hear my voice, sometimes.

Your "voice" is little more than a Maga echo chamber. Why would anyone want to hear that?

Yeah, I'm capable of trolling for sport, but I'm also capable of occasionally having your best interest in mind.

You're not even capable of trolling. All you've managed to accomplish is to show everyone how much of an idiot you are. Of course, you've probably gained favor with our small group of fake Christians and other assorted imbeciles and shills, whose sole purpose in life is to own the libs at any cost. You've achieved their status. Well done, Gary.

 

[Mr. G]

Thank you. A little respect. That must have hurt.

... all you've managed to accomplish is to show everyone how much of an idiot you are,.{/quote}

Risk nothing, gain nothing.

Hey, I'm out here, in front of you. Swing away. Take your best shot.

Idiots are push-overs, right?

Speaking of such...

 

[Pinball1970]

You certainly appear as if you need to be hated and despised for some unknown reason. Why is that?

Attention I think. Not much beyond that.