Are you responsible?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I hope the same standard gets applied to you.

OLB has us dead to rights. We have to simply let him write our laws as if we live in a one party state like North Korea. As long as he gets everything he wants everyone will be happy. Can't have this pesky thing called pluralism in a free west. Can't have everyone voting.

He's definitely in line for a job at the T.rump White House.

[Brian37]

OLB has us dead to rights. We have to simply let him write our laws as if we live in a one party state like North Korea. As long as he gets everything he wants everyone will be happy. Can't have this pesky thing called pluralism in a free west. Can't have everyone voting.

He's definitely in line for a job at the T.rump White House.

Please, don't give the orange turd any ideas.

[Yonadav]

Accusing people of bait and switch is a troll tactic. Trolls think they have seen bait and switch a lot because they count it as a hit every time they accuse someone of it, and never acknowledge their misses (misses are about 100%).  So if you've seen this tactic a lot, it probably just means that you've participated in a lot of trolling. The switch never happened in any of those discussions. But you don't remember that because our brains are always filling in missing information with our worldview.

Are you high? I've seen this tactic used in actual gun debates where both sides were debating the topic openly. It's very common. That said, so isn't the debate about whether car owners should be culpable if someone uses their car in committing a crime. People are way too fucking fond of calling everything they don't like trolling.

No, you just accused people of bait and switch even though no switch ever happened, and then went happily down memory lane and your brain glossed your worldview over the fact that no switch ever happened. People are constantly accusing others of talking about something other than they are talking about, and they are always absolutely certain that they are right, and they are routinely totally wrong, but in their rearview mirror they were right every single time, and then they say goofy things about having seen bait and switch in hundreds or thousands of discussions. And every one of those times was just a time when they accused someone of bait and switch, but no switch ever happened.

Now Brian admits that he is trolling this discussion intentionally, and he says that he intends to keep doing it, and he apparently intends to always force a thread to be a gun thread. My guess is that OLB's threads are targeted by him, since OLB is a gun enthusiast. The guy is a factual troll. And you've been in here encouraging him with your 'well maybe this is a bait and switch discussion so maybe it really is a gun thread' nonsense.  No, it's not a gun thread. It a thread that's being trolled by Brian with help from you there, moderator.

[Brian37]

Are you high? I've seen this tactic used in actual gun debates where both sides were debating the topic openly. It's very common. That said, so isn't the debate about whether car owners should be culpable if someone uses their car in committing a crime. People are way too fucking fond of calling everything they don't like trolling.

No, you just accused people of bait and switch even though no switch ever happened, and then went happily down memory lane and your brain glossed your worldview over the fact that no switch ever happened. People are constantly accusing others of talking about something other than they are talking about, and they are always absolutely certain that they are right, and they are routinely totally wrong, but in their rearview mirror they were right every single time, and then they say goofy things about having seen bait and switch in hundreds or thousands of discussions. And every one of those times was just a time when they accused someone of bait and switch, but no switch ever happened.

Now Brian admits that he is trolling this discussion intentionally, and he says that he intends to keep doing it, and he apparently intends to always force a thread to be a gun thread. My guess is that OLB's threads are targeted by him, since OLB is a gun enthusiast. The guy is a factual troll. And you've been in here encouraging him with your 'well maybe this is a bait and switch discussion so maybe it really is a gun thread' nonsense.  No, it's not a gun thread. It a thread that's being trolled by Brian with help from you there, moderator.

No I never said I was trolling. I said both sides use the word "troll"

Now please QUOTE ME IN EXACT QUOTES in this thread where I called anyone a troll. I'll wait.

EXACT QUOTES.

As in, "Person X is a troll".

"Troll" is a common argument, EVEN OUTSIDE this website, used by frustrated people who cant make an argument. And just like "You live in your mother's basement" I have seen that doge/ad homin used by both sides.

---

And I do intend to keep challenging bad logic. No, I will not apologize for that.

[onlinebiker]

Are you high? I've seen this tactic used in actual gun debates where both sides were debating the topic openly. It's very common. That said, so isn't the debate about whether car owners should be culpable if someone uses their car in committing a crime. People are way too fucking fond of calling everything they don't like trolling.

No, you just accused people of bait and switch even though no switch ever happened, and then went happily down memory lane and your brain glossed your worldview over the fact that no switch ever happened. People are constantly accusing others of talking about something other than they are talking about, and they are always absolutely certain that they are right, and they are routinely totally wrong, but in their rearview mirror they were right every single time, and then they say goofy things about having seen bait and switch in hundreds or thousands of discussions. And every one of those times was just a time when they accused someone of bait and switch, but no switch ever happened.

Now Brian admits that he is trolling this discussion intentionally, and he says that he intends to keep doing it, and he apparently intends to always force a thread to be a gun thread. My guess is that OLB's threads are targeted by him, since OLB is a gun enthusiast. The guy is a factual troll. And you've been in here encouraging him with your 'well maybe this is a bait and switch discussion so maybe it really is a gun thread' nonsense.  No, it's not a gun thread. It a thread that's being trolled by Brian with help from you there, moderator.

Naw..


It' s just that anti- gun is part of the official atheist doctrine.


Dissent at risk of heresy...

[Brian37]

No, you just accused people of bait and switch even though no switch ever happened, and then went happily down memory lane and your brain glossed your worldview over the fact that no switch ever happened. People are constantly accusing others of talking about something other than they are talking about, and they are always absolutely certain that they are right, and they are routinely totally wrong, but in their rearview mirror they were right every single time, and then they say goofy things about having seen bait and switch in hundreds or thousands of discussions. And every one of those times was just a time when they accused someone of bait and switch, but no switch ever happened.

Now Brian admits that he is trolling this discussion intentionally, and he says that he intends to keep doing it, and he apparently intends to always force a thread to be a gun thread. My guess is that OLB's threads are targeted by him, since OLB is a gun enthusiast. The guy is a factual troll. And you've been in here encouraging him with your 'well maybe this is a bait and switch discussion so maybe it really is a gun thread' nonsense.  No, it's not a gun thread. It a thread that's being trolled by Brian with help from you there, moderator.

Naw..


It' s just that anti- gun is part of the official atheist doctrine.


Dissent at risk of heresy...

1970s Nadar, " Car companies, hate to tell  your products suck".

You, " YOU HATE CARS"

Nadar, "No, just think you could do a better job on safety."

You, "YOU WANT TO BAN ALL CARS"

Nadar, "NO YOU FUCKING MORON GROW UP".

Since Nadar started in the late 60s and throughout the 70s, have cars been banned now? 

No, so fucking knock it off with your bullshit slippery slope argument.

Pro safety is not a call to outlaw 100% of firearm sales.

[onlinebiker]

Naw..


It' s just that anti- gun is part of the official atheist doctrine.


Dissent at risk of heresy...

1970s Nadar, " Car companies, hate to tell  your products suck".

You, " YOU HATE CARS"

Nadar, "No, just think you could do a better job on safety."

You, "YOU WANT TO BAN ALL CARS"

Nadar, "NO YOU FUCKING MORON GROW UP".

Since Nadar started in the late 60s and throughout the 70s, have cars been banned now? 

No, so fucking knock it off with your bullshit slippery slope argument.

Pro safety is not a call to outlaw 100% of firearm sales.

And you're still a broken cunt.


...

..!.,

[Fireball]

Holy fuckin' shit, this thread!  I bet Bryan has a closet full of guns and ammo.

[The Grand Nudger]

We commonly believe that a person can be accountable for what other people do with their property, even their stolen property.  That this person was involved in the chain of events that lead to misery is inarguable.   The extent to which their action (or inaction) lead to some negatively valued outcome roughly describes how we view that person..but isn't always a one for one exchange in whether we think that some action should be taken against them (or how).  Responsibility and desert are related but distinct concepts.  There's a thought experiment that describes the peaks and troughs in desert as it relates to accountability.   Three men are sitting on a dock, the first man grabs the second and drowns him, the third merely watches it happen.  

The end result of both mens actions is a dead body.  The body is floating, this much is inarguable.  So both men were involved in this chain of events.  The man who did the drowning is fully responsible, and we're likely to think that if we threw the book at him he would deserve every ounce of it.  He's a bad man, getting what he deserves.  We generally don't think that the third man is fully responsible - but we're similarly unlikely to give the guy a full pass.  His level of accountability (some would argue for greater accountability and some for less) would suggest that he be placed somewhere on the spectrum of blame if this were the only thing we considered in desert.  This is a notion called comparative desert.  It's an appeal to equality which states that similar actions deserve similar outcomes (be they official legal outcomes, or social condemnation).  If responsibility were a scale of one to ten, with lashes being handed out for unit of responsibility - we can see the man who drowned the other as a ten..but regardless of whether we see the man who watched as a .5 or a 9.5..we're discussing some amount of lashes under a comparative desert scheme.

-But that's not how we act, nor is it the only thing we consider.  Particularly when it comes to law.  We operate on a non-comparative scheme where, in any scenario that a person could be over compensated or under compensated negatively, we hold it to be axiomatically true that under compensating them would be best.  So, a person could have a responsibility level of .5 or 9.5....but so long as it isn't 10, and even accepting that this person is to a greater or lesser extent responsible for what happened..we nevertheless opt out of retribution or opt out of the greater level of retribution, leaving their welfare level higher than they would comparatively deserve.  We'll still think that they're a piece of shit and that they should have done something (different), and often enough we think that their offset level of comparative welfare is just another reason that they;re a piece of shit - they got off with a warning - but we're not willing to add a fourth mans after the fact actions to that comparison.

TLDR version...yeah, ofc you can be responsible if someone takes your car and runs some poor fucker over with it, but that doesn't mean that we see no difference between you and the person who ran that fucker over, or that we're willing to punish you for whatever level of responsibility you can certainly possess.

[EgoDeath]

People like Brian are the ones who would possibly benefit, if he lived, from a home invasion without the protection of having a gun in their house. I truly hope it never happens to you, but if it does, you'll understand the idea of having a gun for safety. Having firearms has literally saved my life on multiple occasions.