The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by psmith81992
Oh lovely, let's play a game of semantics then in the face of your diminishing argument.

No, they are actually completely separate. You made a mistake. Move on from it.

But you have. At least Janus offered legitimate suggestions. Your entire conclusion was the equivalent of "Boo guns"

I have as well. You just cannot get off of his dick, to the point where you try to lick his nutsack when everyone is asking you to admit that you're lying through your teeth.

"Janus, you see this article here? Janus, what do you think of this? Oh my gosh, Janus? Please fuck me! Please forget that I'm lying scum!"

You're biased. You're discrediting everything I say because you don't like me and are cherry picking at my responses. You've done nothing but say, "You've just said this (When I actually hadn't) and here's another vague and incorrect summary of what you've said."

What have YOU added, besides invalid criticism?

Putting two words together doesn't make them a solution.

Yet, you put four or five together and attempted to do this. I criticized that it wasn't that simple and you've merely responded by saying, "No, that's what you did." You're a GODDAMN PARROT, dude. Does Mr. Trainer want a fucking cracker? Straight up.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Don't you talk shit about my cat dude he'll kick you ass and then sniff the **** out of it, b*tch.

You're asking him to prove correlation and causation. Between what, if not that?

You're asking him to prove correlation and causation between high numbers of firearm-related deaths and the ready availability of firearms in America

Because when you post stats like that, you don't account for countries like switzerland who have more than half as many guns per capita, but also a fraction of the gun related deaths. So it's not as simple as saying "look, more guns!". And that's the point.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Because when you post stats like that, you don't account for countries like switzerland who have more than half as many guns per capita, but also a fraction of the gun related deaths. So it's not as simple as saying "look, more guns!". And that's the point.

(Countries like Switzerland and Israel have already been noted as having mandatory military service and a gun-culture wildly different from the United States. Aren't you the one who says that social observations about Europe shouldn't be applied to the United States?)

((Sorgo, you're doing good work so far. Don't let him dodge the misapplication of the slippery slope.))

Originally posted by psmith81992
Because when you post stats like that, you don't account for countries like switzerland who have more than half as many guns per capita, but also a fraction of the gun related deaths. So it's not as simple as saying "look, more guns!". And that's the point.

Janus already explained this and I provided additions to that explanation. Also, again, you're cherry picking. You're responding illogically so why even bother?

That's a bad analogy though. Both Switzerland and Israel have compulsory military training which teaches citizens how to responsibly use weapons, discipline, and when it's okay to use lethal force. The Swiss are even allowed to take their service weapons home with them, IIRC.

Compared to America, where any Tom, Dick and Harry can acquire a gun and shoot it liberally at whoever is on their property because Castle Doctrine.

Why would I need to repeat this? Remember, you're the parrot, not me.

Originally posted by The Renegade
No, they are actually completely separate. You made a mistake. Move on from it.

Yet, you put four or five together and attempted to do this. I criticized that it wasn't that simple and you've merely responded by saying, "No, that's what you did." You're a GODDAMN PARROT, dude. Does Mr. Trainer want a fucking cracker? Straight up.

I've pointed out your hypocrisy and ignorant argument. Please continue crying for amusement.

Originally posted by Zampanó
[B](Countries like Switzerland and Israel have already been noted as having mandatory military service and a gun-culture wildly different from the United States. Aren't you the one who says that social observations about Europe shouldn't be applied to the United States?)

Also, it's a slippery slope, whether an opinion or fallacy. I'm not interested in debating the alleged misapplication.

Originally posted by psmith81992
You got caught quoting a slippery slope opinion, fallacy, whatever you want to call it. Your concession is accepted.

I got caught doing what? I didn't get caught. I chose to quote that and I was against that opinion, if you READ the post so what exactly have you caught me doing?

Also, why say "whatever?" The slippery slope fallacy is different from the slippery slope. Like, as in, they are not the same. Different.

Like, not the same.

Like... different, and stuff.

Weird, we fight all the time while you're sucking his dick trying to insult me. Love the projection, sweetheart🙂

Trying to insult you? You do a fine job of degrading yourself with your conduct, how you argue, and you lying to people.

Poor baby. I never mentioned Janus' name anywhere there. Using your hilarious logic, looks like you're the lying scum. 😂

See, it's difficult to mention someone's named when their cock is down your throat.

Valid criticism, calling you out on hypocrisy "you're biased because you don't agree with me which makes me biased".

Yup,

Also, you're biased because you don't like me. You didn't soundly criticize any of what I had posted. THAT shows prejudice. You really shouldn't be. I know I exposed you as a liar and it's upsetting but, if you handled it differently and admitted it, you'd garner more respect and less hate.

Trust me on that.

I've pointed out your hypocrisy and ignorant argument. Please continue crying for amusement.
]

You haven't because

A) The argument wasn't hypocritical.
B) The argument wasn't ignorant.

Try harder.

Also, you're not interested in debating the "alleged" misapplication? Dude, you FACTUALLY misapplied it. Nothing alleged there. They aren't synonymous. Like, read a book or something.

Where's the U?

I got caught doing what? I didn't get caught. I chose to quote that and I was against that opinion, if you READ the post so what exactly have you caught me doing?

Also, why say "whatever?" The slippery slope fallacy is different from the slippery slope. Like, as in, they are not the same. Different.

Like, not the same.

Like... different, and stuff.

Trying to insult you? You do a fine job of degrading yourself with your conduct, how you argue, and you lying to people.

See, it's difficult to mention someone's named when their cock is down your throat.

Also, you're biased because you don't like me. You didn't soundly criticize any of what I had posted. THAT shows prejudice. You really shouldn't be. I know I exposed you as a liar and it's upsetting but, if you handled it differently and admitted it, you'd garner more respect and less hate.

A) The argument wasn't hypocritical.

And your argument was ignorant because you said "look, more guns=more deaths", and concluded with "cultural reformatting".

Keep trying though.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I didn't accuse you of a slippery slope lol. I was saying those opinions that you argue against are slippery slopes. How are you NOT getting this?

I didn't say you accused me of that. Are you high? Yeah, slippery slope fallacies, not an "opinion." You fudged it.

And you do an even better job of riding my nuts, swearing, using words you don't understand, riding other people's nuts, and generally acting 12.

I don't see how you providing me with your biography is helpful to this discussion.

You would know, lying scumbag🙂

I don't lie so I'm not sure what you're going on about.

You're the last authority on "respect". It's not that I don't like you, I think you're an amusing child and since I agree with gun control, there's no bias. You didn't really expose anything other than getting trolled.

Oh, here we go. Some nice troll exemption. Do what you can when you're on the back foot. No biggie. No sweat off this dude's sack.

I said YOU were hypocritical, not the argument. Learn to read.

Yes, I assumed you meant through my argument when you said me. Remember, you're the person who said "slippery slope opinion" in reference to the fallacy without being specific. I do what I can when people just toss words around like confetti.

It makes no difference. My argument, nor myself, were hypocritical.

And your argument was ignorant because you said "look, more guns=more deaths", and concluded with "cultural reformatting".

Keep trying though.

No, again, that wasn't what I said. You're strawmanning now. You need to re-evaluate my post and then perhaps you'll be able to respond more cohesively. Until then, shhhhhh.

I didn't say you accused me of that. Are you high? Yeah, slippery slope fallacies, not an "opinion." You fudged it.

I didn't say you accused me of that. Are you high? Yeah, slippery slope fallacies, not an "opinion." You fudged it.

Oh, here we go. Some nice troll exemption. Do what you can when you're on the back foot. No biggie. No sweat off this dude's sack.[/quote]
Oh right, because out of everyone, you're the only one who's been riding my jock for almost a week, looking like your blood vessels were about to burst. Totally on the back foot🙂

Yes, I assumed you meant through my argument when you said me. Remember, you're the person who said "slippery slope opinion" in reference to the fallacy without being specific. I do what I can when people just toss words around like confetti.

Yes, I assumed you meant through my argument when you said me. Remember, you're the person who said "slippery slope opinion" in reference to the fallacy without being specific. I do what I can when people just toss words around like confetti.

[quote]It makes no difference. My argument, nor myself, were hypocritical.

No, again, that wasn't what I said. You're strawmanning now. You need to re-evaluate my post and then perhaps you'll be able to respond more cohesively. Until then, shhhhhh.

(Countries like Switzerland and Israel have already been noted as having mandatory military service and a gun-culture wildly different from the United States. Aren't you the one who says that social observations about Europe shouldn't be applied to the United States?)

To elaborate, the point I'm making is if Switzerland has 60% as many guns but only a fraction of the deaths, what is the most likely culprit, guns or people? It's to strengthen the idea of either more gun controls, gun training, or both.

Since I've never heard of a "slippery slope opinion" and automatically assume it's by default a fallacy, I'll take your word for it.

Then I feel very sorry for your lacking mind, if you don't know the difference. Honestly.

Well lets see, you claim I ride Janus' nuts and that I asked him to look at an article, when neither of those things happened. Using your liberal definition of "lying scumbag", looks like you just outed yourself. Game, set and match.

Well, you do ride his nuts.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Janus, why is Mass Effect 3 eerily similar to Halo?

Originally posted by psmith81992
Janus, RH, any of you following the Donald Sterling fiasco?

Guys, I threw RH in there to show how neutral and fair I am and I totally don't want to swallow Janus' load!

I never said you asked him to look at an article. I was being sarcastic, when I was quoting you. You absolute tool of a human being(?)

My liberal definition? You LIED, you damn fool.

You ignore everyone when they ask about the U and how you linked to a different tab than what you had open. How is my definition "liberal," by your abysmal standards? You LIED. There is evidence that you did. Cut it the fuck out, you worm.

Not sure you know what a strawman is, and which "post" are you referring to? You should probably quit now?

The post you just made. That wasn't what I had said. You arguing against a point I didn't make. That's what a strawman fallacy is. You're lazily summarizing my argument, wrongly so.

You are languid to the nth degree, when it comes to debating/talking/being honest/everything.

Then I feel very sorry for your lacking mind, if you don't know the difference. Honestly.

Well, you do ride his nuts.

uys, I threw RH in there to show how neutral and fair I am and I totally don't want to swallow Janus' load!

I never said you asked him to look at an article. I was being sarcastic, when I was quoting you. You absolute tool of a human being(?)

You ignore everyone when they ask about the U and how you linked to a different tab than what you had open. How is my definition "liberal," by your abysmal standards? You LIED. There is evidence that you did. Cut it the **** out, you worm.

The post you just made. That wasn't what I had said. You arguing against a point I didn't make. That's what a strawman fallacy is. You're lazily summarizing my argument, wrongly so.

You are languid to the nth degree, when it comes to debating/talking/being honest/everything.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Please explain the difference, since you keep claiming you possess all of this intelligence and I've yet to see it.

I already have. I'm not repeating myself because you've chosen to either:

A) Not read.
B) Read but not understand.

HINT: The post you did it in, I had said that you had JUST done it (E.G.: Now) so let's play a little scavenger hunt together, Mr. Trainer!

Yes..Except nothing in the past week proves anything but the opposite. I've fought with everyone freely, when the discussion got civil you disappeared waiting for someone else to restart the bashing, when you reappeared. Looks like your memory is a bit hazy🙂

Bashing? You weren't civilly and calmly trying to stop all the abuse you were getting, like a victim. You did something shitty and attempted to move on from it because you want to pretend like it never happened. You didn't even address it properly. You tried to cover it up and it was a wasted effort.

We all know you lied. The thing about evidence is that you cannot dispute it, especially in this case.

Oh wonderful backpedaling. So you get outed as a hypocrite when I used your very liberal application of "lying scumbag" against you, and now you revert back to crying. Got it.

I wasn't outed as a hypocrite. Your explanation of my supposed hypocrisy was insufficient. What backpedaling? Me, speaking as you, was COMPLETELY sarcastic, homes. It was a given. Well, not for you.

But you were being....Sarcastic? Rofl. The amount of rationalizing you do is incredible. And because I kept your blood boiling the rest of the week while everyone else eased off because they're not as dumb, you're going to continue crying.

Yes, I was. I can be sarcastic and you can still brown-nose Janus... at the same time. I know, I know. It's kind of like magic.

You didn't keep my blood boiling. You were embarrassed for the entire week, continuously dodging practically everyone asking you where the goddamn U is and going to back to time where the Faunz also exposed you as full of shit.

I'm not letting your lying ass off the hook so easy peasy, buster. It ain't happ'nin.

Yet you can't provide the "post", resort to ad hominem when you don't have an argument or rebuttal, and continue crying. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

It's not that I can't but rather that I'm not obligated to do work for you.

Ad hominem? How so? I've insulted you, sure, but not fallaciously. An ad hominem is saying you're opponent's argument is invalid due to a trait the arguer bears.

I never did that. I insulted you for lying separately. I never said, "You're wrong because you lied a few days ago" or "Your points are invalid because you are unintelligent."

Honestly, I'm bored of educating you. You should all be doing this independently. I ain't no damn teacher. Pay me, if we're to continue.

Yes, the hypocrisy is so overwhelming, it doesn't exist. Wow, oodles!

Shhhhhhh.
Shhhhh.
Shhh.

I already have. I'm not repeating myself because you've chosen to either:

A) Not read.
B) Read but not understand.

Bashing? You weren't civilly and calmly trying to stop all the abuse you were getting, like a victim. You did something shitty and attempted to move on from it because you want to pretend like it never happened. You didn't even address it properly. You tried to cover it up and it was a wasted effort.

We all know you lied. The thing about evidence is that you cannot dispute it, especially in this case.

I wasn't outed as a hypocrite. Your explanation of my supposed hypocrisy was insufficient. What backpedaling? Me, speaking as you, was COMPLETELY sarcastic, homes. It was a given. Well, not for you.

Yes, I was. I can be sarcastic and you can still brown-nose Janus... at the same time. I know, I know. It's kind of like magic.

You didn't keep my blood boiling. You were embarrassed for the entire week, continuously dodging practically everyone asking you where the goddamn U is and going to back to time where the Faunz also exposed you as full of shit.

I'm not letting your lying ass off the hook so easy peasy, buster. It ain't happ'nin.

I explained it to you. Go look a few posts up. Also, you've done it several times so there's even more than one example! More magic!

It's not that I can't but rather that I'm not obligated to do work for you.

Ad hominem? How so? I've insulted you, sure, but not fallaciously. An ad hominem is saying you're opponent's argument is invalid due to a trait the arguer bears.

I never did that. I insulted you for lying separately. I never said, "You're wrong because you lied a few days ago" or "Your points are invalid because you are unintelligent."

Honestly, I'm bored of educating you. You should all be doing this independently. I ain't no damn teacher. Pay me, if we're to continue.

Yeah, this is an absolute waste of time. You can have the last word for the same reason that a boxer knocking some dude out and the dude tapping his foot while convulsing on the ground can have the last contact.

Originally posted by The Renegade
Yeah, this is an absolute waste of time. You can have the last word for the same reason that a boxer knocking some dude out and the dude tapping his foot while convulsing on the ground can have the last contact.

Lol, guess it took you 5 minutes to think of that one. Because when the criticism goes against you, you bail and cry instead of taking it like a man. Again, predictable. I'll go look at some of your posts later and restart the conversation. I'll stop calling you a hypocrite because it's too damn obvious at this point and you absolutely lose your mind. I didn't know you were such a sensitive boy.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Lol, guess it took you 5 minutes to think of that one. Because when the criticism goes against you, you bail and cry instead of taking it like a man. Again, predictable. I'll go look at some of your posts later and restart the conversation. I'll stop calling you a hypocrite because it's too damn obvious at this point and you absolutely lose your mind. I didn't know you were such a sensitive boy.

You didn't legitimately criticize me. I've been criticized before and have been very accepting of it. I'm not when some dude who's mad that I exposed him for lying and then botched a cover up comes along and cherry picks/nitpicks at my posts illogically.

Where's the U, dude?

Originally posted by psmith81992
But the graphs show the # of guns versus gun deaths. That's also. There's no room here to apply caveats like "military service" because that's not what's being discussed. You can't simply say "look more guns more deaths", wait for me to post Switzerland, and then say "well that's different".

So I remember that you have taken at least introductory econometrics. When you run a regression on data, there is a measure of how well the trend is explained by the formula you generated. However, the general form of the regression includes an error term:

Y = α + β(x) + ε

That epsilon term is the error. It is included to account for the causes of variation in the data that aren't being examined (by β ). However, every major statistical conclusion you can draw relies on the assumption that the error term epsilon is completely random. Specifically, there has to be no mathematical or theoretical reason that the information being swept into the error term should influence Y in a particular direction.

I am talking through this basic stuff because you and I both know that the culture surrounding firearms absolutely influences the number of gun deaths, regardless of per capita gun use. So if you ran a regression, there would be a HUGE portion of the gun death data that goes unexplained. Trying to discount this very influential variable in your model of important factors involved in gun deaths is just going to make your prediction power weak.

I'd encourage you to think again about whether the Swiss and Israeli ex-military gun-holders are the best way to argue for your point about civilian gun-holders in America.