Gun ownership poll

[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Oh, here we go. If I don't agree with you, I'm not a reasonable person. I get you now.

You are not reasonable because you refuse to accept that language is not up to your sole arbitration and refuse to apply common sense, context or the dictionary.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Please provide a link to the post where I "insist pro-life must be an absolutist universal philosophy with no exceptions ever under any circumstance." I have said repeatedly that it makes no sense to me how someone who claims to be "pro-life" can be for the death penalty. And also, what is my "hyper partisan agenda?" I've said I would like to keep abortion legal. Is that my "hyper partisan agenda? If it is, do you use the same terminology for "pro-lifers?"

Every one of your posts, this has been your thesis. That pro-life must be pro-life in any and all circumstances, with no exception, no context, nothing but an absolute hardline, an appeal to purity definition. You are not treating pro-choice and pro-life to the same standards. If pro-life is to be treated in this way, then logically so too must pro-choice. What other reason is there for it besides you like one and not the other? Even if we ignore the rest of the world, common English usage and the dictionary, you keep insisting pro-life is a misleading and false branding while refusing to treat pro-choice in the same way. This is political, not logical.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Oh, now I'm an ideologue. That's very Aristocratic of you. Out of curiosity, how did you survive the early 2010s? The movie "Catfish" came out in 2010. People starting using the term "catfish" as something other than the dictionary definition: "any of an order (Siluriformes) of chiefly freshwater stout-bodied scaleless bony fishes having long tactile barbels." It wasn't until 2014 that the new definition was added to the dictionary. In the meantime, how did you react to anyone who used the term as "a person who sets up a false personal profile on a social networking site for fraudulent or deceptive purposes." Did you point out they weren't using the term as defined in the dictionary? Did you accuse them of being unreasonable if they didn't agree with you to stop using it in the fallacious manner? Did you call them an ideologue? Just curious.

See above. Words change in usage as time goes and new slang comes. 'Catfish' is not the result of one individual just pretending a phrase they don't like means something else and screeching that the entire rest of the country is using it wrong. You must know this is an absurd argument. I've said a lot, I'm sure you can find something to actually get me on. I've got a ton of posts to find an avenue of attack. It's not that difficult.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

My first post in this thread was Post 115. You first posted on this subject in Post 97. But, yeah. You didn’t post until my “nutball extremist takes.” Sure, if it makes you feel better, disregard the truth and keep telling yourself you only posted because of me.

Read. The transcript is public and visible to all. What I said and you even quoted was "You and BobC just had such nutball extremist takes I couldn’t resist pointing out the absurdity of the false pretenses of ignorance." Post 97 is me replying to BobC. So... exactly in line with what I said...

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Thanks for this response. We agree for the most part on the abortion issue. We disagree on the death penalty issue. I think, had he survived, the Uvalde killer would be a prime candidate for the death penalty.

Perhaps we can agree that it is amusing we don't disagree very much on the actual issue.