Yes, so he could wash his hands of responsibility.
Is that why you banned guns?
So you can pass on the responsibility to your armed police.
In the normal course of events, police are not armed with guns in the UK. But, armed or not, it is their responsibility to enforce law and order, so laughing at their being asked to exercise that responsibility comes across as stupid, if you don't mind my pointing it out.
Yes, so he could wash his hands of responsibility.
He's washed his hands of the truth, if you ask me. I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe a word he says.
Perfect teaching moment on the futility of philosophy in the absence of trust then!
Your difficulty in belief has zero bearing on the truthfulness of my words.
Wittgenstein’s ruler…
Unless you have confidence in the ruler’s reliability [to measure truth], if you use a ruler to measure a table you may also be using the table to measure the ruler.
Yes, so he could wash his hands of responsibility.
He's washed his hands of the truth, if you ask me. I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe a word he says.
The other day he challenged me to find the mutual exclusivity between a defence pleading not guilty and the prosecution asserting guilt. He pulls dumb stunts like that all the time and you know it isn't because he's too stupid to know what he's doing (at PN we have plenty of people who are that stupid so we are quite good at spotting who is and who isn't). He just doesn't have standards and he doesn't care what he writes, he's in it for the conflict and nothing else, it's a personality disorder.
But this is PN and that sort of thing is kind of normal here. If he quit the forum, we would have to recruit a new psycho to maintain staffing levels.
Yes, so he could wash his hands of responsibility.
He's washed his hands of the truth, if you ask me. I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe a word he says.
The other day he challenged me to find the mutual exclusivity between a defence pleading not guilty and the prosecution asserting guilt. He pulls dumb stunts like that all the time and you know it isn;t because he's too stupid to know what he's doing (at PN we have plenty of people who are that stupid so we are quite good at spotting who is and who isn't). He just doesn't have standards and he doesn't care what he writes, he's in it for the conflict and nothing else, it's a personality disorder.
But this is PN and that sort of thing is kind of normal here. If he quit the forum, we would have to recruit a new psycho to maintain staffing levels.
What a fucking moron.
Challenging you to express and make explicit your standards (the ones you claim don’t objectively exist) is precisely my point.
Every. Single. Time.
And then you get all preachy from your moral high horse when I steal your own position and attack you from it.
The strategy stealing strategy is game theory 101.
You keep framing everything in terms of mutual exclusivity; and then you project your own inner conflict onto me.
Your obliviousness to your psychological dysfunction (the pursuit of non-contradiction) is hilarious.
Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 11:19 am
Skepdick, are you from South Africa, or which country do you argue on behalf of Gun Rights?
I live in South Africa but I am not arguing for any particular country’s model.
In fact - I have very strong feelings against the current model given the general dysfunction of the administration and the licensing process.
Sprinkle on top the fact that guns surrendered to the police keep ending up in the hands of criminal gangs - I think guns are much better controlled by their owners than the government.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat May 13, 2023 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 10:53 am
The other day he challenged me to find the mutual exclusivity between a defence pleading not guilty and the prosecution asserting guilt. He pulls dumb stunts like that all the time and you know it isn't because he's too stupid to know what he's doing
No, but he must think everyone else stupid if he expects to get away with it. One of his favourites is a sort of warped paraphrasing of your words. If I say, I don't want a gun, he presents it back to me as: so you are saying you don't care about the safety of your family.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 10:53 am
The other day he challenged me to find the mutual exclusivity between a defence pleading not guilty and the prosecution asserting guilt. He pulls dumb stunts like that all the time and you know it isn't because he's too stupid to know what he's doing
No, but he must think everyone else stupid if he expects to get away with it. One of his favourites is a sort of warped paraphrasing of your words. If I say, I don't want a gun, he presents it back to me as: so you are saying you don't care about the safety of your family.
“Get away with it”?
What do you think this is? A kangaroo court?
I don’t give a shit about your words - I care about their implication when codified in law.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat May 13, 2023 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
