WE NEED MORE GUNS..

[Skepdick]

No clearly you do (and selfish to the extreme) by allowing to the same extent any nutjob access to easy ways of mass murdering innocents (children and all-n-sundry)

The prevent nutjobs from acquiring guns and let everyone else have them.

Or are you saying the reason you banned guns for everyone is because you are all nutjobs?

[attofishpi]

No clearly you do (and selfish to the extreme) by allowing to the same extent any nutjob access to easy ways of mass murdering innocents (children and all-n-sundry)

The ban nutjobs from owning guns and let everyone else have them.

How do you determine who is a nutjob - indeed, any human that secretly has decided to kill at a school full of children?

[Skepdick]

How do you determine who is a nutjob - indeed, any human that secretly has decided to kill a school full of children?

Your inability to tell the difference sounds like a you-problem.

Most people aren't nutjobs. Why should most people be banned from owning guns?

If you let the minority of nutjobs dictate how the majority of non-nutjobs should live their lives you've broken democracy.

[Age]

Amen.

What 'part/s' here are 'you' 'amening', EXACTLY?

Really all of it.

Okay.

[attofishpi]

How do you determine who is a nutjob - indeed, any human that secretly has decided to kill a school full of children?

Your inability to tell the difference sounds like a you-problem.

Most people aren't nutjobs. Why should most people be banned from owning guns?

YOU FAILED. You know it is impossible restrict guns from people that have a hidden idea to mass murder children.

I'm sure many on the forum would agree with me that it is selfish kunts like you that are ultimately responsible for every childs death at these killings.

[Age]

DAM, it makes no difference whether S is a cop or a person who claims to be a cop. That’s because we are discussing arguments versus counter arguments, not identities versus identities.

Okay.

So, ALL people should NOT bring up 'things', which do NOT make ANY DIFFERENCE here, right?

By the way, WHO was 'it' EXACTLY WHO brought up some person being a so-called 'cop' FIRST?

Skepdick self/identified as a cop and Harbal called Skepdick a liar.

WHO called "skepdick" ANY 'thing' here was NOT what my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS were ASKING.

I just ASKED 'you' two QUESTIONS, "commonsense", of which you ANSWERED just ONE.

[Skepdick]

YOU FAILED. You know it is impossible restrict guns from people that have a hidden idea to mass murder children.

I'm sure many on the forum would agree with me that it is selfish kunts like you that are ultimately responsible for every childs death at these killings.

I failed?

You know it's impossible to restrict genitals from people that have a higgen idea to mass-rape children.

When are you going to hand in your genitals at the police station in order to stop child rape?

You fucking selfish cunt! What do you need genitals for? It's 2023 - we have artificial insemination. Don't you want to prevent child rape?
You can license some genitals if you'd like - but they'll be kept safe at the fertility clinic for you.

I'm sure many on the forum would agree with me that it is selfish cunts like you that are ultimately responsible for every childs rape.

[commonsense]

Okay.

So, ALL people should NOT bring up 'things', which do NOT make ANY DIFFERENCE here, right?

By the way, WHO was 'it' EXACTLY WHO brought up some person being a so-called 'cop' FIRST?

Skepdick self/identified as a cop and Harbal called Skepdick a liar.

WHO called "skepdick" ANY 'thing' here was NOT what my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS were ASKING.

I just ASKED 'you' two QUESTIONS, "commonsense", of which you ANSWERED just ONE.

The first question seemed rhetorical.

Right?

[commonsense]

'This' was EXACTLY what I was referring to, and WHERE the 'flaw in reasoning', from my perspective, EXISTS.

Basically I changed my mind from where I started.

Yes I had REALIZED.

I was being serious.

And the FLAW IS STILL THERE.

Please identify and describe the flaw.

[Age]

Absolute bullshit.

I do distributed systems, you retard - the entire field revolves around distributed consensus. As in the exact opposite of conflict.

I am just here to pour fuel on the dumpster fire that is Philosophy - so it burns down brighter and quicker.

QED.

It sort of stands to reason that you wouldn't have stopped to think whether boasting that you waste hours here pursuing nothing but destruction works for you or just makes you look worse. That's the oblivious behaviour of the personality disordered.

Q.E.D ^ 2

Your exaggerations have no end.

I don’t pursue “nothing but destruction”. I have surgical precision in my pursuit of the destruction of philosophy.

Nothing more - nothing less.

LOL How can 'you' DESTROY some 'thing', which EVERY one is born WITH, NATURALLY?

I have no desire to destruct anything non-Philosophical.

How do 'you', supposedly, SEPARATE the 'philosophical' FROM the so-called 'non-Philosophical'?

In order for order for humanity to move forward the cancer that is Philosophy (as currently practiced) needs to be removed.

HOW WAS so-called 'Philosophy' 'practiced' in what was 'current' to you? And,

WHY does 'that practice', supposedly, NEED 'to be REMOVED'?

And of course you would aggrandize yourself as a big shot computer guy within the same thread you've been telling us you are a policeman.

There is no need to aggrandize myself; and I don’t know if I am a “big shot” but in terms of being a police officer and a distributed systems guy - I am both.

Is your mutually exclusive brain failing to cope with this fact; is time-sharing a novel idea to you; or is it the fact that a Bobby on the beat understands your “field of expertise” better than you do that pisses you off?

So, there is, SUPPOSEDLY, NO 'need' to 'aggrandize' "yourself" YET 'you' CONTINUE to 'TRY TO' do so, even DIRECTLY AFTER 'you' CLAIM that there is NO need to.

[Age]

Skepdick self/identified as a cop and Harbal called Skepdick a liar.

WHO called "skepdick" ANY 'thing' here was NOT what my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS were ASKING.

I just ASKED 'you' two QUESTIONS, "commonsense", of which you ANSWERED just ONE.

The first question seemed rhetorical.

Right?

I can NOT inform 'you' of what ANY 'thing' SEEMS 'like', to 'you'. That will ALWAYS BE SOLELY DEPENDENT UPON 'you', ALONE.

But, if 'you' were to ASK 'me', 'Was your first question 'rhetorical?'

THEN I would have SAID, 'No'.

I may have ALSO INFORMED 'you' that absolutely EVERY QUESTION I have ASKED, and will ASK, here, in this forum, IS ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION, and ASKED FROM a Truly OPEN perspective.

In other words, I have NEVER ASKED and would NEVER ASK a 'rhetorical question', just so 'you' BECOME AWARE.

[Harbal]

Actually - I am lying.

In order to save considerable time and effort, only tell us when you aren't.

[Harbal]

YOU FAILED. You know it is impossible restrict guns from people that have a hidden idea to mass murder children.

I'm sure many on the forum would agree with me that it is selfish kunts like you that are ultimately responsible for every childs death at these killings.

As you know, I speak for a good many of the members here, and I can confirm that we do agree with you.

[Skepdick]

Actually - I am lying.

In order to save considerable time and effort, only tell us when you aren't.

That rule only saves time and effort when you speak.

It wastes time and effort when I speak.

[Skepdick]

YOU FAILED. You know it is impossible restrict guns from people that have a hidden idea to mass murder children.

I'm sure many on the forum would agree with me that it is selfish kunts like you that are ultimately responsible for every childs death at these killings.

As you know, I speak for a good many of the members here, and I can confirm that we do agree with you.

So you also agree with genital control towards prevenging child rape? Or are you going for a U-turn here?