I’m choosing to respond to your comments, and give you a limited time opportunity.
First, let me say that the only reason why you aren’t allowed to comment here, is you and your behavior.
Second, until 10:00 pm tonight (Eastern Time) you can post your entire plan in the comments section of this post. If it had the specifics, details, and definitions I’ve been asking for. I’ll post it as it’s own post and allow you to comment on that thread.
As it has been for quite some time, the ball is in your court and you can choose what you want to do.
Otherwise keep whining. I don’t care that much.
23 comments:
Fuck you. You and Marshal have had the plan for months. You wanted it but you two couldn't get it together and so refused to put the plan up on your blogs. You both have such a need to deny how ignorant and fearful you are that you both have dedicated yourselves to lies.
LIe 1. You never got it - but you've gotten it four times.
Lie 2. It's not a plan - it may not be a perfect plan but fuck you, what is a perfect plan?
Lie 3. There are no details - but you're already arguing with the details: See Marshal's blog.
Lie 4. It's up to me do anything - it's up to you and the other shallow fake to post the plan. Then we can hash out issues. Take care of your shit and stop being a deceitful coward.
Where's your plan? Oh, that's right. Your brilliant plan is more guns in more hands.
And what does ALL the research and all the data and all the math in the us and around the world say about more guns?
IN EVERY STUDY: THE MORE GUNS THE MORE DEATHS.
You have a whole hell of a lot of work to do to be a Christian who loves the living.
There's no way he'll comply by that deadline. Indeed, he'll portray himself as victimized in some way by you even daring to put him under such pressure, because of course he's so much above us (*gag*).
What's more, there's no way he could put together an actual plan to comply in that time. He only has his talking points and the assurance that his suggestions actually work, have worked and will work everywhere they're put in place. Just take his word for it.
Then of course, it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that he'll demur with the dodge that he's given us everything requested already...which he hasn't. Oh, yeah...he has if you allow that we were to "work together" as he was so kindly encouraging us by his dividing his "plan" between three locations...except that he's no right, authority and certainly no superiority to condescend in such a manner, when all he's really doing is obfuscating due to the fact that he has no plan.
As you say, a plan requires something more than simply another law that has no possibility of accomplishing the goal, alone or together with other similarly impotent suggestions that the criminal element won't follow. I would insist upon examples that prove any suggestion has actually worked...examples that would stand up to scrutiny of those who aren't in the bag for the gun-control fascists who have already made it easier for innocent victims to be murdered.
I guess I should have checked Dan's blog first, for having done so, I could see a new comment was posted and sure enough, it was feo outraged at your audacious demand that he actually provide his plan. Sure enough, he insists he provided it. Sure enough, his plan is simply to enact all his suggestions into law, most of which are already in existence pretty much everywhere with no effect whatsoever...except to deny the law-abiding. Sure enough, he regards those talking points as the details you requested merely because they've been addressed at my blog, which if that is proof of anything, then it is proof that I've shown the impotence of this "plan". And sure enough, he asserts once again what has been has been debunked thoroughly (more guns, more gun violence) while proving that all his "plan" really provides is the banning of weapons from the hands of the law-abiding.
feo's "plan"...if he insists on calling it that...is no more than a love of murder, for it makes it easier for the weak to be oppressed by the evil. (So very freakin' hard not to apply that word where it is so clearly appropriate---more on that to come at my blog soon).
1. I’ve never gotten an entire, detailed plan with terms defined.
2. It’s a list, not a plan. It has no details, no definitions, no nothing but talking points and made up % of effectiveness. I never asked for a “perfect”plan. Just one with terms defined and details provided.
3. I’m not arguing details, I’m pointing out the impossible and questioning the validity of your opinion poll numbers in the real world.
4. That’s up to you. I’m giving you the opportunity to get what you want. To be straightforward and provide what you’ve been asked for. If you choose not to, that’s on you.
I guess the concept of proving your claims and providing evidence when you call someone a liar are as foreign to you as to Dan.
No plan, just more of the same old BS. Just more lies.
I’m thinking that folx like Dan and Feo should demonstrate their commitment to their philosophical position by placing large “gun free zone” signage around the perimeter of their yards.
Other than that you pretty much called his reaction. It appears that it’s more important to have something to stoke his faux outrage and to continue to lie about, than to man up and do what he’s been asked.
Dan’s just his enabler.
I’m not going to post the comment because it’s pointless.
Suffice it to say that “the plan” is the list (the list with absolutely zero details or defined terms as specified). The list with “effectiveness ratings” determined by opinion poll. The key is to try them all at once (throw poo at the wall and see what sticks). Without addressing the constitutional issues, or the other problems (details) and explaining what the specifics are (definitions), he’s simply asserting that his list is a plan.
How incredibly disappointing, I thought he knew the difference between a list and a plan.
Well, he IS highly educated and very well read. I guess THAT is means something different to lefties, too.
It's sad. I'd prefer to have adult debates with nothing but sound arguments backed by actual, verifiable evidence. Instead, we get feo and Dan, who wish to dictate all terms to their advantage, not only at their blogs, but blogs of their debate opponents as well. Snark I can handle...even enjoy. Cowardice, deceit, arrogant condescension from one who lacks justification...not so much, nor do I feel the least big obliged to do so.
At the end of the day, what remains is the same open, welcoming invitation for just such discourse. But instead we get the same infantile behavior presented as moral superiority. Sad.
Well, he claims to be highly educated and well read, we have no idea if he actually is.
Clearly he’s debunked the highly educated myth.
Let’s just say that the lack of definitions and details in his “plan” is clearly a major flaw.
Acting as if % change decided by opinion poll is actually objective fact is another.
What’s the saying “The Devil is in the details.”, well the lack of definitions and details is clearly a problem.
Given your inability to engage in a civil conversation with anyone you disagree with, I have no idea why I thought you’d react differently this time. Clearly you’d rather have something to continue to rant about that to do what you’ve been asked to do.
Clearly this was a huge mistake on my part.
He wants us to believe that if the nation adopts every single measure he suggests, then we'll see dramatic changes. He offers no way to explain how that is any more than a hopeful wish, yet stands proudly behind it. He doesn't even explain how tying any number of them together makes them work better than alone, or why you couldn't get away with implementing just half of them, or two thirds or any other amount less than all of them. But what does it matter how many impotent, ineffective laws are enacted? More importantly, how much are they offset by the increase in defenseless people?
Above all that, murder will continue to be portrayed by different means. Nothing will have changed except the weapon of choice, but incredibly stupid, highly educated and well read false priests will feel all warm and fuzzy because the dead weren't murdered with firearms. feo will do a lot and accomplish nothing. He's good with that.
Feo,
Just a hint. Using Chicago as an example of effective gun control laws is a really bad idea.
Art,
You just don’t understand. It’ll happen because Feo said so. You know how it is with he and Dan, their assertions are reality, you just need to submit.
I do have to wonder how the opinion poll generated effectiveness numbers take into account the reality that the vast majority of the people who will obey these new laws are part of the 99+% of gun owners who currently don’t commit crimes.
The problem with any of this is the fact that it lumps “gun violence” into one big amorphous grouping. It treats the woman who shoots her potential rapist the same way as the drug dealer in a turf war, the same way as a suicide.
It seems to be about trying to avoid defining terms and the specific results that are hoped for, in favor of vagueness.
It's the fraud of "violence is evil", which Dan pushes as well. Stopping evil often requires violent means, including shooting back. If it was all reversed, and only the criminal and insane were without firearms, the use of guns to criminals and the insane would still be "gun violence", but not at all evil.
That is, the use of guns to SUBDUE criminals and the insane would still be "gun violence", but not at all evil.
Art,
If you introduce enough vagueness into the numbers it’s a good thing, right?
Apparently the raving idiot has trouble reading English. He’s just making stuff up now.
Feo, I’ve not blocked you. I’ve enabled comment moderation and I delete the vast majority of your comments. While I realize that the effect is nearly identical, I point it out to demonstrate the importance of definitions.
When I imposed this current state of affairs, and why I maintain it, is related to three actions on your part,
1. Your unwillingness to provide a plan complete to definitions and details. I realize you think that a list of talking points with imaginary % of effectiveness is a plan, yet it’s not what I asked for.
2. Your childish flooding of my moderation folder with literally thousands of re posts of the same comment. Especially when your actions threaten my ability to engage in my livelihood.
3. Your choice to engage in all manner of uncivil behavior. From outright lies, to putting words in my mouth, to your vulgar rants and personal attacks, I just don’t have the time or energy to deal with your crap.
You’ve chosen to be uncivil, I’ve chosen to be MN nice.
As Dan is so fond of saying, “It’s my blog, my rules.”.
feo believes I must turn if I wish to win back his respect. I don't know why he seems to think I crave it. It has no particular value to me. Whether or not I "deserve" his respect or not is entirely up to him, just as whether or not I respect him is entirely up to me. From his first appearance on the blogs, he's done a lot of expecting respect, but has been an entirely repellent character undeserving of mine. Even Dan at one time drew at least a modicum of respect, as I saw him as one incredibly wrong and gone astray, but sincere. (The veil us certainly fallen from the face of THAT princess.)
My job is not to concern myself with earning the respect of others...especially in this fallen world. It's simply to honor God to the best of my woefully imperfect ability. I wouldn't be doing that any better by corrupting my soul to the extent that I've earned the respect of feo, Dan or anyone else.
Feo believes a number of unusual things. But this demand that he be respected, given his behavior, is simply absurd.
Respect is earned, not demanded.
I have to reiterate how laughable I find his suggestion that I'm even concerned about having his respect. That's not to say that I don't prefer being respected. Who wouldn't? Even having the respect of low character people like feo and Dan is cool. But I guarantee I don't lose sleep at the thought of not having it. I don't even require it as a prerequisite for commenting at my blog. Visitors don't even have to like me. But civility (snark is OK) is another thing, and feo isn't civil, either. Nor can he, or Dan for that matter, justify their incivility...feo by his unjustified self-worship or Dan by pretending he's on Christ's level.
I've actually read a couple of feo's most recent attempts to post at my blog. He clearly posts the same comments everywhere, apparently, with many if not most eventually showing up at Dan's. Very pathetic, but I'm considering posting one or two for the sheer entertainment value...entertainment that comes from shredding his pompous and irrational positions.
I do like how Dan has been adamant that no one is taking the “no rules” position, yet he just made exactly that statement.
It seems like there is some confusion about speech. Just because someone has the right to say something doesn’t mean they have a right to be heard or have their words spread. It also doesn’t mean they’re free from the consequences of their words.
Post a Comment