General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0

Here, here, and here might offer some insight into Phat's [lack of] gender bias.Jon

I think if Phat was going to spank me, it would be very much evidence in your favour Jon

I see two options, really. As far as I'm concerned, the entire purpose of message one in that thread was to 'point out' my incompetency in reading/comprehension. Now, nator asked, in message one,

quote:

---

What I want to know is how the heck can anybody read my posts in that thread and just ignore the SEVEN seperate times I repeated the same simple idea?

---

If this was truly the purpose of that thread, if all nator wanted was to ask "why can't you people read?" then does not the entire topic seem overly childish and immature? If it really is that the thread is meant to continue on that topic, then I think it just needs to be shut down. I believe we tend to hold ourselves to higher standards here at EvC, no?Now, the other option. Since the thread has essentially mutated into an extension of the original Guns thread, I think we could discuss that instead, which brings up some issues.Nator has said: "guns make the violence that is going to happen anyway much more lethal." Apparently she didn't think I understood it when it was worded that way, so she decided to word it this way: "guns make the violence that is going to happen anyway much more lethal." In fact, she posted the same post twice. She also said that she was arguing that GUNS = INCREASED DEATHS, which has been my take on her position from the beginning.I responded by stating that if someone WANTS to kill, they will do it anyway, because they WANT to. If that person just wants VIOLENCE”for example, threatening, roughing up, etc.”then they are not going to shoot someone to kill them, even if they have a gun in their pocket, hand, etc. Nator then said: "It is precisely BECAUSE killing people is so EASY with guns that, when the violence that is inevitably going to happen occurs, more people die." I replied with "This assumes that when someone sets out to be violent, their intent is always murder. "Now, nator never responded to that. Crashfrog did, and you know what, I thought his argument was valid to a certain extent provided he could back up the data he had provided regarding involuntary manslaughter. I understand the opponent's argument, have from the start:"Guns increase deaths." Nator admitted to it in Message 207. (You will have to review the message to which she replied there, since her quote of me is a quote mine. In its entirety it read: "So, while no one here has specifically said outright that guns increase deaths, it has been implied in their logic all along." In other words, I GOT what they were getting at.)My response was:"Not everyone who sets out to be violent sets out to kill."Crashfrog understood what I was saying, and he replied to me with a good message that had a good point that was worth further investigation. What was nator's reply? Just look at Message 229

quote:

---

Look, I am starting to think that you are just making us jump through hoops, then pretending that you don't understand why we are leaping through those silly things, to get your jollies or something.

​

Read the OP.

​

Say something substantive about it.

---

Funny thing is, I DID say something substantive about it”which is more than I can say for message 229”, and crashfrog and I were on the way to debating that substantive reply of mine.So, this is MY question: Nator's the one being "mulishly" think headed at the moment. Why was I given the warning?You said I don't get what's going on, but the funny thing is, I have been all along, and demonstrated so in Message 192, and in Message 292 in the first thread. Once again, a quote mine taken out of context would show that I was only arguing "violence in general," but Modulous and I discussed that and it was shown that post 292 in that thread was dealing specifically with murder, and that my quote referred to murder specifically when in its context.Anywho, my counterargument was made, and the other posters have been making headway working off of that... but nator's still stuck in the "Jon can't read stage."What the Hell gives?

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ ____________ _ _ _ _ _En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10

Actually, I was waiting for you to get back to anglagard with actual links to the information. You can't just say that some source says something else, you need to link us to it too. I believe that was the intent of angla's reply to you, and it was what I was waiting for before going any further with our debate.However, I don't think this is the thread to discuss this in But, it would be nice for you to give a link to your information so that it can be substantiated and we can go on, I would like to explore what you've said in more depth Let's bring this back to the gun thread if we have any more to say about it, eh?
Jon

STOP USING THIS QUOTE MINE! Modulous and I went through this, and I explained that even though the quote said violence, it was MEANT IN THE CONTEXT OF MURDER. Modulous accepted this 'correction' so why the hell can't everyone else? Why do people CONTINUE to use that QUOTE MINE trying to 'prove' that I don't understand the opponents' position? All they have been doing is trying to BLAME ME for 'misunderstanding' where they're coming from because they do NOT HAVE ANSWERS to my MULTITUDE of questions/counterarguments. What I said was TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. Read my exchange with Modulous and you will see that we cleared that up. And I replied to her! In fact, she has yet to address my counterargument, and crashfrog”having made a somewhat valid argument against me”has yet to provide any means to access his 'sources' on the matter.Is it so difficult to see that the only people we are waiting on now are the anti-gunners who just want to continue to blame the pro-gunners of misreading their position simply because they have no argument against ours?To sum up: The people who DID misrepresent their opponent's position were the ANTI-GUNNERS when they used my sentence in message 292 of the earlier thread to QUOTE MINE me in an attempt to blame their opponents because they themselves had weak arguments that THEY STILL HAVE NOT GIVEN.Good grief! That's enough from me in THAT thread. Impartiality is clearly a myth.