Students Dress as VTech Victims; Lulz Ensue

That was certainly not addressed at me. By the way, a perfect case of ad hominem, you use an attack on me to avoid answering the arguments. Would you have the courtesy to give me an answer now, or did you realize that you were wrong?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That was certainly not addressed at me.

You sure? Even if its not ive seen you insult people on here and the flip out when you get the same treatment. Therefore that makes you a hypocrite that is just talking.

Originally posted by Bardock42

By the way, a perfect case of ad hominem, you use an attack on me to avoid answering the arguments. Would you have the courtesy to give me an answer now, or did you realize that you were wrong?

What question?

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, it's not a no brainer. You make it out to be one. I value the freedom of millions of people over the emotions of one person, that a) shouldn't be offended and b) wouldn't likely know anyways.

And there shouldn't be a law against being an *******. They might be assholes, but they should be allowed to do it.

And what I said about skin colour wasn't referring to anything you said, it was just showing how you took it on yourself to decide what's allowed and what isn't. Like, where you single handedly decided for all of us that dressing as victims of a random shooting shouldn't be allowed and that it is "common sense".

That's the point, it should be allowed, though I see no reason why they should do it.

Originally posted by Alfheim
You sure? Even if its not ive seen you insult people on here and the flip out when you get the same treatment. Therefore that makes you a hypocrite that is just talking.

Prove that, cause I am pretty much sure you pulled that out of your ass. Besides, it wouldn't make me a hypocrite in any case as I never said someone that gets insulted or offended can't be insulted or offended.

Originally posted by Alfheim
What question?

Notice how I didn't say question anywhere? I said arguments. Arguments that you ignored once more.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Prove that, cause I am pretty much sure you pulled that out of your ass.

Er no ive seen it and ive seen other posters say the same **** about you.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Besides, it wouldn't make me a hypocrite in any case as I never said someone that gets insulted or offended can't be insulted or offended.

You said they shouldnt be offended. If your getting offended by people online about trivial things your a hypocrite for saying people shouldnt be offended when somebody makes fun of murder.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Notice how I didn't say question anywhere? I said arguments. Arguments that you ignored once more.

You did say arguments my bad..but you used the word answer.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That was certainly not addressed at me. By the way, a perfect case of ad hominem, you use an attack on me to avoid answering the arguments. Would you have the courtesy togive me an answer now, or did you realize that you were wrong?

If you ask me to answer something obvoulsy that implies you asked me a question. You ask a question a person answers, simple

Originally posted by Alfheim
Er no ive seen it and ive seen other posters say the same **** about you.

Yeah, it's just not true. Or are you going to produce any evidence?

Originally posted by Alfheim
You said they shouldnt be offended. If your getting offended by people online about trivial things your a hypocrite for saying people shouldnt be offended when somebody makes fun of murder.

That's your standards again. I don't think someone should be offended because someone made a more or less private joke aimed at no one, while they might be offended when they are attacked personally. All this doesn't matter, as I don't get offended by what people said here, so you are wrong.

Originally posted by Alfheim
No you didnt. Maybe thats what you meant but what you said was...

You are an insufferable idiot, aren't you?

That was certainly not addressed at me. By the way, a perfect case of ad hominem, you use an attack on me to avoid answering the arguments. Would you have the courtesy togive me an answer now, or did you realize that you were wrong?

It is exactly what I said, would you be so kind as to not lie, dodge and insult and limit yourself to the issue at hand?

Originally posted by Alfheim
If you ask me to answer something obvoulsy that implies you asked me a question. You ask a question a person answers, simple

Not if I use it in connection with "arguments", in that case it means you didn't reply to the questions my arguments brought up, such as "Why should he freedom of the person be limited?", "Why should people be outraged and insulted?", "Why should there be a law against being an *******?", "Did you understand what my comments about skin color meant", "Why do you think it is ok for you decide what is allowed and what isn't?" ... probably a few more I didn't think of. But, alas, instead of participating in the debate like a mature human you dodged and dragged it to a personal level, so, could we now go back to the real arguments after you tried to expose me as hypocrite, dodge all my arguments, lie about what I said and just all in all behaved like a major *******? (see, a question)

Oh it's already been brought it...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, it's just not true. Or are you going to produce any evidence?

That's your standards again. I don't think someone should be offended because someone made a more or less private joke aimed at no one, while they might be offended when they are attacked personally. All this doesn't matter, as I don't get offended by what people said here, so you are wrong.

I'll ahve to take your word for it. 😐

Originally posted by Bardock42

It is exactly what I said, would you be so kind as to not lie, dodge and insult and limit yourself to the issue at hand?

I edited it and saw where you said arguments.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Not if I use it in connection with "arguments", in that case it means you didn't reply to the questions my arguments brought up, such as "Why should he freedom of the person be limited?", "Why should people be outraged and insulted?", "Why should there be a law against being an *******?", "Did you understand what my comments about skin color meant", "Why do you think it is ok for you decide what is allowed and what isn't?" ... probably a few more I didn't think of.

Yes but look what you did there. You refered back to the argument you made and specifically refered to questions that you asked. So you did actually ask questions and if you want somebody to answer an argument you have to put it in a form aquestion which is what you did.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Cause that's assault. People do not have the right not to be offended. If you start with that why not be offended by what a person is wearing? Or if they have socialist ideas, why not ban those, they are offensive to me? Or someone saying Beckham is the best footballer ever, that's offensive, why not ban that?

So you didnt ask any questions but you have questions marks there?? You did ask questions and it was in the form of an argument.

Originally posted by Bardock42

But, alas, instead of participating in the debate like a mature human you dodged and dragged it to a personal level, so, could we now go back to the real arguments after you tried to expose me as hypocrite, dodge all my arguments, lie about what I said and just all in all behaved like a major *******? (see, a question)

Nope I answered the question.

Originally posted by Alfheim

Thats not the same as making fun of somebodies death.....c'mon man. Its just an excuse to act like ****.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Did I say that people shouldnt make fun of skin colour?
Did I say that people shouldnt make fun of small stature.
etc

I said making fun of people who have been murdered. Its a no-brainer your mother gets stabbed in a mugging and somebody makes fun of it that person is going to be very very pissed off an,d if you did that you would be an ***hole.

Did you understand the point I was making? Heres my point getting offended by socialism is going off on a tangent because I was not refering to being offended by peoples beliefs or making fun of peoples stature. Talking about Beckham is rubbish because makign fun of murder is alot more seerious. Also you gave these examples because you were trying to show teh problem with my deciding the laws. Again my point was I am speciofically refering to making fun of murder. You also aksed why should people by offended....I answered that question!!!! Hence thats why I asked you what questions....because I already answered them!!!!!!!!

So heres what we have established.

1. You did ask questions, hence the question marks. The questions as a whole were an argument in the form of a question.
2. I answered the questions, despite the fact you said I didnt.

Originally posted by Alfheim
You heard the expression legal and ethical? If something is legal its doesnt mean its ethical. For example I dont think women still have the same rights as men (could be wrong cant remember the exact details), you can sue somebody if you break into their house and you hurt yourself.

Rephrase this.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Furthermore you never have absolute freedom there are always limits. Hey have the right to offend people why cant I just spit in peoples faces?

So? I never said there wasn't limits. If I choose to exercise those limits I have every right too, regardless. Also, as Bardock42 stated there is a difference between dressing up as someone and spitting in their face. The latter is assault.

Originally posted by Kram3r

So? I never said there wasn't limits. If I choose to exercise those limits I have every right too, regardless.

I was juat adding my 2cents.

Originally posted by Kram3r

Also, as Bardock42 stated there is a difference between dressing up as someone and spitting in their face. The latter is assault.

Of course its different but also stated that dressing up as somebody when it specifically is connected to murder can be emoitional assualt. Emotional pain is important to.

Originally posted by Alfheim
I was juat adding my 2cents.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Of course its different but also stated that dressing up as somebody when it specifically is connected to murder can be emoitional assualt. Emotional pain is important to.

Ugh. This wasn't done to "assault" or "offend" anyone. This was done at a PRIVATE party. They dressed like this because they knew that the people who were at the party wouldn't get offended and understand the manner in which they dressed as such. They didn't go around VA Tech dressed as such and go "Look at me! I'm pretending to be a dead student" or go to the families of these people and go "Trick or Treat!". As for the photos they were meant for friend viewing, for the same group of people who would know the manner in which they dressed as such. If someone PC freak stumbles upon them, it isn't their fault that they viewed them.

Originally posted by Kram3r

Ugh. This wasn't done to "assault" or "offend" anyone. This was done at a [B]PRIVATE party. They dressed like this because they knew that the people who were at the party wouldn't get offended and understand the manner in which they dressed as such. They didn't go around VA Tech dressed as such and go "Look at me! I'm pretending to be a dead student" or go to the families of these people and go "Trick or Treat!". As for the photos they were meant for friend viewing, for the same group of people who would know the manner in which they dressed as such. If someone PC freak stumbles upon them, it isn't their fault that they viewed them. [/B]

Yeah but they did put it on facebook and guess what were talking about it! To be fair they were probably careless but on principle if somebody did something like this and they knew full well that the victims could see it, that I think is wrong.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Yes but look what you did there. You refered back to the argument you made and specifically refered to questions that you asked. So you did actually ask questions and if you want somebody to answer an argument you have to put it in a form aquestion which is what you did.

No, nice try not looking like a moron, but it didn't work, as I did not ask questions, my arguments raised certain questions that your rebuttal should have covered, instead you dodged by quoting botankus' statement.

Originally posted by Alfheim
So you didnt ask any questions but you have questions marks there?? You did ask questions and it was in the form of an argument.

That were not the questions you were referring to, again trying to come back from looking like an idiot and failing. I did ask questions there, but it was earlier.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Nope I answered the question.

Those were not the questions referred to.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Did you understand the point I was making?

Of course I did, it is just stupid.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Heres my point getting offended by socialism is going off on a tangent because I was not refering to being offended by peoples beliefs or making fun of peoples stature.

Dodging. They are related, freedom of speech issues.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Talking about Beckham is rubbish because makign fun of murder is alot more seerious.

In your opinion, you don't provide any reasons.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Also you gave these examples because you were trying to show teh problem with my deciding the laws. Again my point was I am speciofically refering to making fun of murder.

Which is deciding a law. You think murder should not be made fun of.

A boy and Myra Hindley walk through a Moor. The boy says "Myra, I am scared", Myra replies "You think that's bad? I have to walk back alone."

Joke about murder, that shouldn't be allowed? If it should how do we decide which jokes about murder are alright, which aren't? (questions)

Originally posted by Alfheim
You also aksed why should people by offended....I answered that question!!!! Hence thats why I asked you what questions....because I already answered them!!!!!!!!

No, you didn't. Trying to seem less moronic again, if you had just continued our argument instead of dodging and insulting you wouldn't seem like a douche now

Originally posted by Alfheim
So heres what we have established.

1. You did ask questions, hence the question marks. The questions as a whole were an argument in the form of a question.

Wrong. It's what I said.

Originally posted by Alfheim
2. I answered the questions, despite the fact you said I didnt.

Wrong. You did not.

Originally posted by Bardock42

That were not the questions you were referring to, again trying to come back from looking like an idiot and failing. I did ask questions there, but it was earlier.

I was refering to your whole argument. I posted that post because im not going to post every single one of your posts. You did ask questions, you think my answers were not suitable.

Originally posted by Bardock42

That were not the questions you were referring to, again trying to come back from looking like an idiot and failing. I did ask questions there, but it was earlier.

Yes I was I was refering to your whole argument.

Originally posted by Alfheim
I was refering to your whole argument. I posted that post because im not going to post every single one of your posts. You did ask questions, you think my answers were not suitable.

A boy and Myra Hindley walk through a Moor. The boy says "Myra, I am scared", Myra replies "You think that's bad? I have to walk back alone."

My brain hurts just reading this page.

Originally posted by botankus
My brain hurts just reading this page.

You could go with the Alfheim method though and feel that he and I should not be allowed to debate.

Dude, I wasn't talking about you. You stated that I wasn't referring to you and I didn't respond, implying that you were correct.

Here is a picture:

Originally posted by botankus
Dude, I wasn't talking about you.

Dude, I used you to make fun of Alfheim, get over it already.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dude, I used you to make fun of Alfheim, get over it already.