All right, I'll spell it out more explicitly for the chronically trollish: I was making the point that Nova saying "he was a law abiding gun owner... until he wasn't", IMHO, would be the equivalent of someone saying "Gay and trans people aren't child molesters... until they are." - it's a broad-brush pejorative. Yes, she was speaking of a specific case, but her implication was broad-brush, and insulting. I chose that phrase for its reciprocal shock value to make the point to her.
Yeah, I got that, and the analogy doesn't track, and made you look like an ass. I just used humor to underline it to make people laugh, rather than weep with horror at what you did. Mopping up your spill. You're welcome.
The judges have reviewed Forbin's play and have determined that it was legit. The analogy stands. Diacanu's objection is overruled.
Nova's post was stupid. Everyone is a law abiding citizen, until they aren't. It's a meaningless statement. You can apply it to anything.
Utter bullshit. Being gay has nothing to do with molesting children; having a gun is a prerequisite for shooting another human being.
Drinking alcohol is a prerequisite for being a drunk driver. Being around children is a prerequisite for being a child molester. Being an accountant is a prerequisite for being an embezzler. Having sexual desires is a prerequisite for being a rapist. Being a Muslim is a prerequisite for being an Islamic terrorist. It works for, essentially, everything. Saying that "having a gun is a prerequisite for shooting another human being" is a true statement, but it has zero practical value. Having the use of one's hands is a prerequisite for shooting another human being. So is having sight. So is having the will to kill. So is having the opportunity to do so. There are a million prerequisites. If you suggest that merely possessing a gun somehow makes every person that does a potential killer, your view of humanity is pretty twisted. It also flies in the face of overwhelming evidence--millions upon millions of people possess their guns on a daily basis without any adverse consequence to others whatsoever.
Yes, and that's why we don't allow drunk driving. We control the use of cars. It does not work for being gay and molesting children, which is the point.
Your analogy fails. People still own cars. People still drive cars. We don't ban cars because some people drive drunk. We control the use of guns NOW the same way we control the use of cars NOW. Being gay is a prerequisite to being a gay child molester. Works fine. It's a true statement. So, based on the statistics of "being gay" and "being a gay child molester" would you say that it's a useful statement?
Exactly. Thank you for pointing out the difference between banning guns and controlling guns, and the need for the latter. That's a tautology, but even if w remove your typo, the statement doesn't become accurate. Which isn't what @Forbin said. And if you care about whether someone is gay child molester instead of caring about whether he is a child molester, period, then you're not just a hateful bigot, but your hateful bigotry is making you a danger to children in addition to being a danger to gays.
Then you'll have to be more specific about what you mean by control. Elaborate, please. How can I be a hateful bigot by making a TRUE statement? Being gay IS a prerequisite to being a gay child molester.
Done that a hundred times, am up for it again, but will not let it become a useless tangent here that distracts from the bullshit you just posted. Dear Lord. Really? It is false to claim that the laws about guns and the laws about cars are identical. That's a highschooler's argument. We want to prevent people from killing each other in cars, We want to prevent people from murdering one another. We want to prevent people from molesting children. We do not want to prevent people from being gay. Uncontrolled use of cars is a prerequisite for drunk driving. Uncontrolled use of guns is a prerequisite for mass shootings. Being gay is in no way a prerequisite for molesting children.
You're comparing a hobby (guns) to a person's fundamental identity (gender and sexuality). The two are not comparable, and you come across as a bigot by attempting to make the comparison.
No bullshit, it's a true statement. If you're offended by it, it's only because you see the fundamental unfairness in making such a statement because the predictive value of "gay" on being "gay child molester" is very small. Kinda like the predictive value of "gun owner" on being "murderer." Did not say "identical." I said guns are controlled just as much as cars are. The differences in how they are "controlled" are mainly attributable to the differences between cars and guns. It's an argument patterned EXACTLY after the one you made. We don't want to prevent people from being car owners or gun owners, either. Or do you? Ah, but that wasn't the position you put forward. You said that HAVING A GUN is a prerequisite for gun violence, not that "uncontrolled" (which here seems to mean simply "unlawful") use of it was. Which is pretty self-evident. And, really, what kind of control are you talking about? What control stops me from downing a bottle of Jack Daniels and then driving off in my car?
And you are correct to do so. The only way some people can be made to understand the unfairness and bigotry of their own positions, is to be confronted by something equally unfair and bigoted THAT FOLLOWS THEIR SAME LOGIC.
You're missing the point. I'm saying that "gun owner = potential murderer" is every bit as unfair as saying "gay person = potential child molester." Both of those statements are true, but the predictive value of the first part for the second is so low as to be a useless statement...OTHER than to impugn a large group of people for the actions of a very, very small minority.
And you know what's really fucking tasteless? People in their warm comfy computer rooms crying about their feelings being hurt in a thread about people who ate fucking lead. Fuck off. You wanna shock me into guilt? You first, dickheads.
You're comparing bigotry against someone's identity (gender and sexuality) to bigotry against someone's hobby (owning certain objects such as guns). Certainly, bigotry comes in all sizes, and can include bigotry against personal opinions. But do you understand how bigotry against someone's fundamental identity is far more serious than bigotry against someone's hobby? You're comparing gay apples and fat oranges with tiny dicks.
Not asking you to shed tears, just to acknowledge the millions of gun owners who have done absolutely nothing wrong and who are reasonably upset about losing some of their freedoms because of the actions of someone else.
Uh, "Constitutional rights" not "hobby." The trivialization of something that millions hold very, very dear is part of the problem. Again, not a "hobby." It's easier for you to make that statement when you fail to understand the significance of the other's side position.
You're comparing millions of people who have historically had their freedoms curtailed against millions of people who fear their freedoms might be curtailed. Again, you're comparing gay apples with fat oranges with tiny dicks.
Hobby is too kind. Playing with a toy. When you use a kill-machine to not-kill, you're playing with a toy. Like paintball, like laser tag, like wooden swords in a cardboard pirate ship.
Property ownership is a constitutional right, but I wouldn't call stamp collecting a constitutional right, I'd call it a hobby. Freedom of the press is a constitutional right, but I wouldn't call journalism a constitutional right, I'd call it a job. Similarly, collecting, owning, or using guns is a hobby or past time.
