Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fox news = false news
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 106 of 313 (616626)
05-23-2011 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Theodoric
05-23-2011 3:51 PM


You got any evidence for that assertion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Theodoric, posted 05-23-2011 3:51 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Theodoric, posted 05-23-2011 5:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 107 of 313 (616631)
05-23-2011 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by New Cat's Eye
05-23-2011 3:56 PM


CS if you don't have anything to add to the conversation how about skipping the petty snide, comments. Everyone already knows you don't like me, so if it is ok with you then maybe we can concentrate on the topic.
But if you want to continue your sophomoric comments by all means go right ahead. I expect nothing less.
Oh BTW
You got any evidence for that assertion?
As a matter of fact I do.
Message 29
CS writes:
Its a lot like guns, riVerRrat...
The people who want to ban "Assault Rifles" don't know the first thing about guns or what makes one more dangerous to another.
An attempt to further Riverrats off topic drivel. You see that is what is called evidence.
Seemingly neither you or him have nothing to discount the premise of the thread so instead you decide to lead the thread down a few rabbit holes.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-23-2011 3:56 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-23-2011 5:18 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 108 of 313 (616632)
05-23-2011 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by New Cat's Eye
05-23-2011 3:55 PM


Topic?
Any chance anyone wants to get back to the topic instead of running down CS's rabbit holes.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-23-2011 3:55 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 109 of 313 (616634)
05-23-2011 5:13 PM


Here's another clear demonstration of how fox news lies right through their teeth.

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 110 of 313 (616635)
05-23-2011 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Theodoric
05-23-2011 5:11 PM


You're such a tool

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Theodoric, posted 05-23-2011 5:11 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Theodoric, posted 05-23-2011 5:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 111 of 313 (616636)
05-23-2011 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by New Cat's Eye
05-23-2011 5:18 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
You're such a tool
That is all you've got?
Absolutely nothing on topic? Nothing to defend the crap you spew?
Typical.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-23-2011 5:18 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 112 of 313 (616710)
05-24-2011 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by New Cat's Eye
05-23-2011 12:33 PM


To continue with that analogy, I'm bitching about people who don't know anything about chemistry but want to ban jars of white powder.
There probably is a law preventing you from mailing people baking powder labeled as anthrax, which would be a more accurate analogy to the situation you describe. And I find in that situation little cause for concern. So it means that I can't own "a pimped out .22 with a front grip, folding stock, and a banana mag". Good heavens, why would I want to? Today they deprive me of the front grip on my .22, tomorrow they'll make me take the rudder off my car. But I regard the prospect with stoical equanimity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-23-2011 12:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 9:23 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


(2)
Message 113 of 313 (616726)
05-24-2011 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Rahvin
05-20-2011 7:40 PM


Rahvin writes:
riVeRraT writes:
Rahvin writes:
Jar has business to say whatever he chooses, ........I can express my personal opinion all I want, and if he doesn't think it's any of my business, he can suck it.
Or I don't have to suck it....I can tell him not to say that, and to fuck off, that is my right just as much as it is his.
Exactly. But you can't actually make him shut up, he has every bit as much right to tell you you're wrong as you do to him.
Who said anything about making him shut-up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Rahvin, posted 05-20-2011 7:40 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 114 of 313 (616727)
05-24-2011 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Dr Adequate
05-24-2011 5:25 AM


There probably is a law preventing you from mailing people baking powder labeled as anthrax,
And assaulting people with fake plastic guns too.
which would be a more accurate analogy to the situation you describe.
Not really. The 22 was a firearm before, its just been jazzed up with decorations.
And I find in that situation little cause for concern.
I'm sure there's a limit somewhere... my point is that it should be determined by people who actually know something about guns and not by people who know almost nothing about guns.
So it means that I can't own "a pimped out .22 with a front grip, folding stock, and a banana mag". Good heavens, why would I want to?
Irrelevant.
Today they deprive me of the front grip on my .22, tomorrow they'll make me take the rudder off my car.
Your apathy to a gradual errosion of your freedoms isn't an argument for pursuing it.
But I regard the prospect with stoical equanimity.
It doesn't really matter if you personally care or not. But once again the discussion is going from 'who should decide which guns to ban' to 'why should guns be allowed'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-24-2011 5:25 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-24-2011 5:23 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 115 of 313 (616728)
05-24-2011 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by jar
05-20-2011 6:04 PM


Frankly, I believe that criminal and Child Endangerment charges should be brought against any parent allowing a twelve year old or younger person to operate an ATV or JetSki.
That's insane. I think the first time I rode a dirt bike I was about five years old. I've encounter more injuries from climbing trees.
What about allowing kids to climb trees? Is that child endagerment too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 05-20-2011 6:04 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 9:31 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 116 of 313 (616729)
05-24-2011 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by New Cat's Eye
05-24-2011 9:27 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
Frankly, I believe that criminal and Child Endangerment charges should be brought against any parent allowing a twelve year old or younger person to operate an ATV or JetSki.
That's insane. I think the first time I rode a dirt bike I was about five years old. I've encounter more injuries from climbing trees.
What about allowing kids to climb trees? Is that child endagerment too?
Trees and ATVs are two entirely different subjects and magnitudes of risk.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 9:27 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 9:38 AM jar has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 117 of 313 (616731)
05-24-2011 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by jar
05-24-2011 9:31 AM


Trees and ATVs are two entirely different subjects and magnitudes of risk.
Yeah, from my experience, climbing trees is much more risky. If you think allowing children to ride atvs is criminal, then you should think the same of allowing them to climb trees.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 9:31 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 9:41 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 118 of 313 (616732)
05-24-2011 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by New Cat's Eye
05-24-2011 9:38 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
Trees and ATVs are two entirely different subjects and magnitudes of risk.
Yeah, from my experience, climbing trees is much more risky. If you think allowing children to ride atvs is criminal, then you should think the same of allowing them to climb trees.
Drive ATVs, operate ATVs.
And no, I do not see climbing trees as anywhere near as dangerous as operating an ATV, nor are the skill sets required comparable.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 9:38 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 9:58 AM jar has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 119 of 313 (616734)
05-24-2011 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by jar
05-24-2011 9:41 AM


Drive ATVs, operate ATVs.
Escalate trees, ascend trees.
And no, I do not see climbing trees as anywhere near as dangerous as operating an ATV, nor are the skill sets required comparable.
Depends on the atv and the tree...
But you still have an insane position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 9:41 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 10:10 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 120 of 313 (616738)
05-24-2011 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by New Cat's Eye
05-24-2011 9:58 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
Drive ATVs, operate ATVs.
Escalate trees, ascend trees.
And no, I do not see climbing trees as anywhere near as dangerous as operating an ATV, nor are the skill sets required comparable.
Depends on the atv and the tree...
But you still have an insane position.
You are of course entitled to your position.
However, the skill set and the judgement required to operate a motor vehicle are entirely different than those required to climb a tree. In climbing a tree kids tend to exaggerate the risks and so limit actual risk, it is a relatively slow mounting risk set where there are many opportunities for the child to draw back.
That is not the case in operating a motor vehicle, be it ATV or JetSki. There things develop rapidly and are way beyond the judgement and skill set of a child under twelve.
As a parent, I did tell kids to not climb trees unless I was there to try to supervise, but unless I physically tied them to me, knew I could only try to minimize the risks. Trees are out there.
ATVs and JetSkis though are totally in parental control. Kids just can't go out and find an ATV or JetSki growing in the yard.
As parents it is our duty to minimize the extent of risk to kids, not eliminate risk because risks are a major learning device. We need to try to make sure that the adverse effects of kids failure as they develop judgement and skill sets is kept within reasonable limits.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 9:58 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 10:31 AM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024