Signature thread about gun control and gun violence

Non-neopets general discussion.

What should my new sig say?

Molon labe, bitch.
3
9%
Pwushie killer. In more ways than one.
2
6%
In Soviet Russia, pwushie gets you!
8
24%
Reply to this post or the pwushie gets you.
1
3%
Cute. Cuddly. Deadly.
5
15%
Walk softly and carry a killer pwushie.
0
No votes
My name is Pwushie. You killed my tiger. Prepare to die.
12
36%
Are these things edible? No?! Then why'd you give them to me?!?
2
6%
Reply to this post or Commander Pwushie will find out it was your fault that Mr. Tiger died.
0
No votes
He wasn't called Two-Gun Pwushie because he carried two guns...
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 33

syldssuf
Posts: 68
Joined: 10 Jun 2006 06:49 pm
Location: PA, USA
Contact:

Post by syldssuf »

I'm sorry you got the impression that that wouldn't satisfy us. I personally would be thrilled if you would change either or both. The picture is just kind of bizarre, on the edge of too-far; the text is large and swears at the viewer.
The impression I've been getting is that nothing short of melting my guns down into a guitar and playing "Imagine" by John Lennon on it will make you people happy.
rather than saying it in general or adding "to the suicide person" (which offended me and I wasn't even the person you were responding to).
When posts are coming in at 5 per second, all saying almost exactly the same thing, it's hard to keep straight who's saying what, and also hard to quote stuff and still not be overwhelmed.

You try being the sole person on one side, which you know absolutely 100% is right, with at least a half-dozen other people using massive amounts of intellectual dishonesty, while accusing you of same. It's incredibly frustrating.

This whole thing has basically been an exact repeat of what happened when I tried to comment on a thread which basically said "niggers invented AIDS, they're all baby rapists, nuke Africa off the face of the planet, God made AIDS to kill gays" thread, on an ultra-conservative forum. An exact repeat. Straw man arguments, attacking the critic instead of the criticism, misquoting, twisting words, etc. The main difference being that I haven't left in a huff yet. I know it's hard to see that kind of intellectual dishonesty on your own side, but it's been happening.
Generally, in a debate, you don't attack your own side.
It's called hypocrisy. Accusing the other side of something while ignoring your own side's actually doing it, while typical of all debates (that's the typical part), is double-intellectual dishonesty. It makes you look bad.
Yes. If you were deliberately ignoring the discomfort of others, I would be irritated. What kind of person do you think I am? You don't even know my views on gun control. I like guns. I think there should be much more stringent controls. I don't think they should be illegal altogether. But I'm embarrassed to say so, after all the points you haven't been making in favor of that position. But to imply that I am so callous towards the feelings of others that I would only support some hot-button issues and not others is just rude.
That's the kind of person you associate with. That's how previous rulings look to have been. Mods like it, others don't, it continues. Mods don't like it, lots of people do, it's gone. That's really how it is everywhere. So yes, I was making that assumption. Past experience.

Sorry.
Image
Huggles
Feral Koala
Posts: 2508
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:56 am
Gender: Female

Post by Huggles »

I'm moving this to Chit-Chat because there is no way to properly split this thread given the original post's inherent connection to the debate. Rant, rave, but this no longer belongs in Art.
oogabooga
Posts: 709
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 11:59 pm
Gender: Female
Location: lurking in the basement

Post by oogabooga »

syldssuf wrote:You try being the sole person on one side, which you know absolutely 100% is right, with at least a half-dozen other people using massive amounts of intellectual dishonesty, while accusing you of same. It's incredibly frustrating.
If you weren't being so condescending, maybe you would have more people on your side willing to speak up. I'm embarrassed to mention that I'm anti-gun-control, because you have been making that position look bad.

There's nothing wrong with a good debate, but repeatedly quoting random statistics, making ad-hominem attacks, insisting that the other side is committing logical fallacies while doing the same yourself - that's not going to help anything. (A few people on the other side have been guilty of the same thing, but none of them have been so condescending.)

I'm probably not going to help anything by adding my two cents here, but really, I don't think I'm going to make it any worse either. Syldssuf, in a forum where most people tend toward the liberal, it's kind of asking for trouble to put up an obnoxious sig that you know they won't agree with. Maybe that's what you want? Trouble? If so, you'd be better served with just a thread here in Chit-chat.
Huggles
Feral Koala
Posts: 2508
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:56 am
Gender: Female

Post by Huggles »

Quite frankly, I'm tired of seeing threads ignite and turn into flames recently. I generally hate getting into this debate anywhere on the internet, let alone here. We're smart people, but even if we weren't we could google better places to go to discuss this topic.

I've got a cousin in the FBI, a Grandfather who fought in World War 2, an uncle who fought in Vietnam, numerous relatives and friends who are or were in the military, a nephew who was shot to death because of gang violence, a brother and cousins who've all been to or are currently in jail because of gun violence, and have contemplated using my father's gun to take my own life. So, I'd like to think I have a reasonable amount of personal experience to support my belief in the right to bear arms.

However, even if I had noticed the sudden expansion of this thread sooner, I doubt I would have said much in support of Syldssuf because the brashness of your initial reponse is what geared this thread to where it is now. I cannot recall who it was, but this reminds me of the person who slammed Bush in a new sig every other day, sometimes in supposedly "hidden" text. I don't believe any of the people who complained were even slightly inclined to support Bush. Big ugly sigs about docking cropping, abortion, and the war in Iraq would probably bring about the same sort of reponse. Still, none of the mod's initial posts said you had to remove your sig in the first place.

I'd prefer to lock this and move on.
AngharadTy
Zombie Queen
Posts: 5251
Joined: 08 Jan 2006 05:20 am
Gender: Female
Human Avatar: 89833
Location: Tyland
Contact:

Post by AngharadTy »

That's the kind of person you associate with. That's how previous rulings look to have been. Mods like it, others don't, it continues. Mods don't like it, lots of people do, it's gone. That's really how it is everywhere. So yes, I was making that assumption. Past experience.
First, we've made no "ruling" here.

Second, if you have problems with our rulings, tell us. We are only human; we do make mistakes. However, I don't believe that we're guilty of the kind of hypocrisy and self-serving indulgence that you describe.
Image Image
syldssuf
Posts: 68
Joined: 10 Jun 2006 06:49 pm
Location: PA, USA
Contact:

Post by syldssuf »

I give up.

I try and explain things. Barely anyone acts like they've even vaguely been listening beyond skimming for keyphrases to dispute, so I keep having to rephrase and simplify and re-explain, and somehow that's condescending. I say things like "okay, those are your morals which I can't argue against, but the facts, according to several references are...", and get back responses like "no, my morals overrides facts, just because."

I get several people making personal attacks while accusing me of same, using intellectual dishonesty while accusing me of same, and basically acting a lot worse than I have, but because I'm in the minority, it's just "put up or shut up, it's right when the majority does it, wrong when you do." And I'm supposed to keep from treating people like ignorant, dishonest children when they act like it?

It's irritating, thus I get irritated. Being treated like that does that to me. I have no patience for people who don't listen, who just spout out the same stuff over and over, forcing me to repeat the same points until they get it.
Image
AngharadTy
Zombie Queen
Posts: 5251
Joined: 08 Jan 2006 05:20 am
Gender: Female
Human Avatar: 89833
Location: Tyland
Contact:

Post by AngharadTy »

I understand it must be frustrating to feel you're in the minority, and I know from personal experience how difficult it can be to keep from letting your irritation show through in text.

However.

You can read your posts beforehand and remove the offensive, condescending content. You don't have to add in your sighs and irked statements. And the debate would have gone much more civilly that way.

I don't think that this is the place to try and convert people to your side of the debate. We're not equipped to argue the facts--I have done so, when I took debate in high school, but that was A) years ago and B) I was for guns. And I recognize the complete folly of bringing it up here, because there's no way you're going to convert anyone. It's sort of similar to going to a church and trying to convince the congregation that evolution is real and the earth is millions of years old.

I was very proud of this forum, months ago. Our shining moment was when we had a debate about abortion, and it didn't devolve into name-calling and personal attacks. This may well have. I think all the mods are quite willing to lock it, but we don't, because we don't want to appear heavy-handed. I wish we could go back to polite, intellectual debate; everything here seems to turn personal, lately, and I'm thoroughly sick of the drama. I feel I've been personally insulted by you, syldssuf, and because I don't want to get mired in drama any more, I'm pulling out now. I'll only post again if I'm also locking this topic.
Image Image
Wingsrising
Posts: 2682
Joined: 18 Jan 2006 09:31 pm
Gender: Female
Human Avatar: 157670
Location: Iowa, USA, trying to stay warm

Post by Wingsrising »

Meep. This thread exploded while I was out enjoying a pleasant evening on the town.

Rather than reading it while I'm very sleepy, I'll just throw in my $0.02, 'cause, you know, I'm annoying that way:

1) I am also anti-gun-control (unless by gun control you mean that you should be able to hit what you shoot at).

2) I believe I have very sound reasons for believing this and that empircal studies back this point of view (in the whole, "gun control does absolutely jack to reduce the rate of gun-related crime" sense). I'm not a nut or a redneck and don't even own a gun.

3) However, unusually for me, I think I'll try to stay out of the debate. I like to think I say intelligent things in debates, but they take a lot out of me in terms of time and energy and I don't know that I'm up for it.

4) I have no problem with people putting cartoon drawings including guns in their .sig.

5) However, the hugeness of the .sig and the animated flashy words are very, VERY annoying.

Sleep now.
Image
General Erin
Posts: 84
Joined: 18 Jan 2006 08:23 pm
Location: NJ and DC
Contact:

Post by General Erin »

I just read the whole thread. I am somewhat anti-gun-control...i'm probably middle of the road on this subject. I do not own a gun, I don't plan on owning a gun (unless i go into law enforcement, which is a possibility). However, just because I don't want one, i don't think they should be outright banned. My American culture and tendency towards violence has probably shaded my opinions.
I would like to learn to shoot a gun, if only for gaining that knowledge. But, I wouldn't be a nut and do it in my backyard, I'd go to a shooting range.

Also, I might have been more inclined to help you with your side of the arguement, syldssuf, but the way you've been acting and some of your responses are out of hand.

The arguement of "oh, this is a liberal forum" is completely stupid. I'm being harsh, but really, completely irrelevent. You were the first one to bring up the whole "its a party issue," which half of the forum won't understand because those terms have different meanings in Europe. Also, I would probably class myself as a moderate-liberal, but yet I still (sorta) support guns, and am very pro-military (but not pro-Iraq).

You feel like you've been harrassed, and to some extent, you have. However, I feel like you asked for it from your actions.

fin.
Oh, as far as the sig goes, I'm not offended by the words, or imagery. It's so huge, and I can imagine what a pain it is for people with smaller monitors or slow connection speeds.
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/ ... lf_sig.png">Image
<a href="http://generalerin.deviantart.com/">Art</a>--<a href="http://thegeneralerin.livejournal.com">LJ</a>
Lakota
Posts: 207
Joined: 18 Jan 2006 08:25 pm

Post by Lakota »

Jazzy wrote:
Though the origins of gun control in Britain are less complex. They ran out of colonies to oppress, and so turned on themselves.
Yeah, British society has been severely impeded by the fact that, oh no, I cannot carry a gun. We've denied ourselves the pleasure of owning killing implements because we are self-deprecating masochists who just don't know how to have a good time. We would have guns, but we're too busy hating ourselves and bemoaning our lost empire. Or, we're too busy marrying off our gays and lesbians. Your pick.
That was a mean joke on her part. :x

No big deal on gay marriage. I was happy to see Elton John get married. :)
Oh, and what was your empire? Cuba? The one you stole from the Spanish in 1898 which turned on you and got used as a pawn in the Cold War?
Ummm Cuba was fighting for its independence from Spain, we assisted them, and then made them add those stupid laws (which is why we hold Gitmo today). How did we steal from Spain if Cuba rebelled in the first place? Why is everything the US's fault?

Puerto Rico comes closer to American imperalism. Though given your country's track record, you're not one to complain. Kidding. :P It became a terrority after the US assisted them in their bid for independence from Spain.
Jazzy wrote:
guns CAN have a useful and responsible purpose in society, like many other commonly abused things
Like nuclear weapons? Or how about the argument that naked pictures of children are okay, because the people looking at them might otherwise go out and snatch children to molest?
You do realize that people still hunt, right? And that deer meat is healthier than beef? That's one okay use of a gun. (not that I could hunt or anything)

Law enforcement uses guns. Isn't that a reasonable useage?
A bumper sticker I saw once states it well, "If we outlaw guns, the only people that will have guns are outlaws!"
Yeah! Except, you know, it doesn't quite work like that. If you outlaw guns, the amount of gun crime goes down and the number of deaths due to gun crime goes down. You don't get armed gangs running the country...and you don't need to outlaw guns to have people with illegal firearms, anyway.
Yes it does. It's illegal to sell firearms in New York yet people still sell them there anyways. The cops can't keep up with it. Likewise I can see some problems for them if guns were outlawed.

I'm all for restricting guns though because in the longrun it sounds worth it. If you're not mentally stable, you have no business owning a gun. That's provided states actually enforce their gun control laws...
We also have deer in the UK, and I don't think I could say that they were "violent". A yelling person brandishing a gun could probably be described as "violent", but deer tend to just run away. Does anyone have statistics on the number of humans killed by deer each year?
But they can be violent due to people being stupid and feeding them or otherwise trying to domestcate them. I remeber how a deer broke in thru someone's screendoor here and destoryed a lot of the house. They had to tranqualized it. We have the same problem with moose in North America.

Why don't you have that problem in the UK? Prob. because you have fewer stupid people. :P Kidding. I don't know why.

syldssuf wrote:
You try being the sole person on one side, which you know absolutely 100% is right, with at least a half-dozen other people using massive amounts of intellectual dishonesty, while accusing you of same. It's incredibly frustrating.

If you weren't being so condescending, maybe you would have more people on your side willing to speak up. I'm embarrassed to mention that I'm anti-gun-control, because you have been making that position look bad.

There's nothing wrong with a good debate, but repeatedly quoting random statistics, making ad-hominem attacks, insisting that the other side is committing logical fallacies while doing the same yourself - that's not going to help anything. (A few people on the other side have been guilty of the same thing, but none of them have been so condescending.)

I'm probably not going to help anything by adding my two cents here, but really, I don't think I'm going to make it any worse either. Syldssuf, in a forum where most people tend toward the liberal, it's kind of asking for trouble to put up an obnoxious sig that you know they won't agree with. Maybe that's what you want? Trouble? If so, you'd be better served with just a thread here in Chit-chat.
My thoughts exactly. I'm willing to work with pro-second-admendment people, but it doesn't seem to be worth it if they're being condescending to me. Likewise I imagine they have the same problem when anti-gun people are behaving that way towards them.

Personally I find it a bit funny that liberals are anti-gun because they are normally 'liberal' about everything else. ^^ Whatever.
syldssuf
Posts: 68
Joined: 10 Jun 2006 06:49 pm
Location: PA, USA
Contact:

Post by syldssuf »

Ugh. Haven't been trying to be insulting and condescending, but when people act... like they've been acting, I tend to treat them exactly as they've been treating me.

If you immediately start bitching about how the argument is invalid for reasons completely unrelated to its content (which was what almost all the posts immediately after my first "argument" one were), I'm not going to be happy about that, and I'm not going to be more polite than you. You try to derail the argument with personal attacks about the way I say things and the way I debate, and I'm going to pull it back on topic, and not gently.

I don't use kid gloves. I say what I mean and mean what I say, and don't pussyfoot around it. Some people find that chafing. Oh, well, there's nothing I can do about it, especially when I'm tring to keep up with singlehandedly debating against a half-dozen people.

On the other hand, I shouldn't have made assumptions about AngharadTy like that, and I am sorry. But it is hard to keep track of what everyone's been saying, when they're posting 5 per second, all saying about the same thing.
Image
General Erin
Posts: 84
Joined: 18 Jan 2006 08:23 pm
Location: NJ and DC
Contact:

Post by General Erin »

Lakota wrote: But they can be violent due to people being stupid and feeding them or otherwise trying to domestcate them. I remeber how a deer broke in thru someone's screendoor here and destoryed a lot of the house. They had to tranqualized it. We have the same problem with moose in North America.

Why don't you have that problem in the UK? Prob. because you have fewer stupid people. :P Kidding. I don't know why.
deer, i forgot deer.

In most of the US, deer are considered a pest. They damage crops, cause damage to property, cause accidents on our roads, and even deaths related to those accidents.

I'm not saying we should kill all deer. I just don't have a problem with deer being hunted like I do with other animals. Deer are seriously overpopulated. (I'm not saying humans aren't, either) On our highways, where people tend to drive over 65mph (104ish k/ph) (and someplaces the posted speed limit is higher) when a deer runs out onto the roadway, it will total a car, and can be potentially fatal to the driver, and of course, anyone else who hits the driver who hit the deer. They are a problem in the US. that's all.
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/ ... lf_sig.png">Image
<a href="http://generalerin.deviantart.com/">Art</a>--<a href="http://thegeneralerin.livejournal.com">LJ</a>
syldssuf
Posts: 68
Joined: 10 Jun 2006 06:49 pm
Location: PA, USA
Contact:

Post by syldssuf »

Actually, people have been attacked and nearly killed by deer, also. Bambi was a very unrealistic portrayal. Deer are not placid and timid, especially not during the rut. If you manage to piss a deer off, it will try to kill you, and probably succeed if you don't have some kind of weapon and know how to use it.
Image
General Erin
Posts: 84
Joined: 18 Jan 2006 08:23 pm
Location: NJ and DC
Contact:

Post by General Erin »

syldssuf wrote:Actually, people have been attacked and nearly killed by deer, also. Bambi was a very unrealistic portrayal. Deer are not placid and timid, especially not during the rut. If you manage to piss a deer off, it will try to kill you, and probably succeed if you don't have some kind of weapon and know how to use it.
well, yes...but then if you piss a deer off, you're clearly an idiot. j/k.
I think deer are more of a problem along busy highways, jsut because of the cars + deer equation. I just think Deer-actively-trying-to-kill you is less likely to occur than deer-running-onto-busy-highway.
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/ ... lf_sig.png">Image
<a href="http://generalerin.deviantart.com/">Art</a>--<a href="http://thegeneralerin.livejournal.com">LJ</a>
syldssuf
Posts: 68
Joined: 10 Jun 2006 06:49 pm
Location: PA, USA
Contact:

Post by syldssuf »

No doubt they are. But I just wanted to add a bit. Deer and bear will both usually run at the first scent of human, but that doesn't mean that they're both harmless widdle fuzzy aminals that wouldn't hurt a fly. All animals, even the cute ones, are potentially deadly. Even bunnies! If you're... a scarecrow or something.
Image
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 32 guests