Get an fucking FFL if you want and you don’t even have to pay transfer fees. Hell you can collect fees for transferring guns between others. Make some money. atf.gov/resource-center/how … easy-steps
Now you can have some facts and calm down, stop repeating fallacious political rhetoric and realize that no one is, or ever has infringed on your rights.
I think urgod is one of those easily triggered people. A prime example of someone who shouldn’t have a gun. Look at how crazy he went over the idea that a right wing politician might have openly admitted to selling his vote to a special interest group. Insane. He thinks that not giving a discount on a flight hinders one’s ability and right to bear arms.
A hot headed, easily triggered guy who’s cool with corruption and doesn’t reason from emotion rather than form his emotions as a result of reasoning.
It’s a fact that the dude doesn’t know about the facts, so there shouldn’t be a problem with stating that unless you mean that we ought not state facts.
There’s a long running debate in philosophy as to whether reason ought be the slave of passion or vice versa. I assumed that everyone knew all about that since it’s 101 level stuff. If you think it’s not relevant to point out when someone is doing it wrong, then you’ve should explain why. Stuff isn’t wrong just because you don’t like it. And if you want to have passion first and then reason from it, then go and be an artist.
Always believe clickbait titles and “revealed” truth in general.
Because of course there is only a single simple reason for issues such as mass shootings and those performing the shootings are typically leftist with their gun fetishes and fantasies of fame or infamy?!
FC, I used to regard you as a thinker - what happened? Since I returned you’ve turned into this alt-right sensationalist mouthpiece - I am presuming this is an extension of some profound ethical insight that you should turn out this way?
He’s upset about the erosion of European culture that’s resulting from mass migrations of Arabs out of places that the US is bombing. He thinks that Trump has got the right idea, but he’s not connecting the dots about the differences between American and European cultures on the ground.
Like if your city had been overrun by people from someplace else and your government, or the people there were too weak to stop it, and you were super proud of your homeland and your culture the way some Europeans are, then you’d be pretty pissed off. But the US isn’t being overrun, and the government here is strong enough to stop it from getting out of hand, and the people of the US don’t care too much about the esoteric aspects of culture in the way that Europeans do. So from his perspective Trump is good, even though Trump is actually very bad for the US.
You can’t post arguments on the basis of pointing to obvious differences between figurative and literal interpretations.
All that’s achieved in that case is a regression to duality, of whose basis is usually grounded in emotionalism.
And emotionalism takes away from effective communication.
Like I said earlier in this thread, a point to which he’s yet to respond…I think he’s too emotional to have an actual debate. He’s reasoning from his feelings instead of deriving his feelings from reason. I think I’ve said that a handful of times to him and he just keeps ignoring it. He’s asking me for an argument when I must have typed 1000 words and I gave a relatively thorough analysis of the issue of gun control. He ignored that and posted a picture of a washing machine and said something about CNN.
He’s just young, not completely mature, not completely educated and not completely emotionally stable. He’s apparently deeply insecure and still in that stage where “winning”, as in “beating someone in an argument” is more important than having a full understanding of a given issue. You can always spot these guys because they cling like crazy to one overarching ideal and everything that they express can be linked back to just that ideal. They’re not reasoning, analyzing, understanding, synthesizing information and coming to valid conclusions about reality. Instead, they’re trying to use rhetorical force, via a sequence of obvious fallacies to insist that the world is the way that they want it to be.
Wouldn’t it be better to understand how things actually are?
That’s what you call “reasoning, analyzing, understanding, synthesizing information and coming to valid conclusions about reality”? And totally not emotional whatsoever I bet.
I made a very similar analysis of him on another thread independently.
It’s interesting how you point out that he’s reasoning from his feelings instead of deriving his feelings from reason - this is exactly what he accuses “the left” of doing, against whom he has set himself. Another thing he assumes is that those he is against just make up stuff in line with their emotions and without reason - which of course is also exactly what he does. The “projection” is obvious to outside observers. I just wrote a rant on another thread about short attention spans and instant gratification, which is exactly in line with your observation about him simply wanting to “win” rather than grow. He encapsulates a caricatured version of all the fallacies that you would expect from somebody who knows nothing but suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect, and in line with that, he holds this conviction that he is particularly superior. I think the feeling of understanding how things actually are is more valuable to him than actually understanding how things actually are.