it's not "nitpicking language" to point out the flimsy strawmen you create to misrepresent my arguments.

i said the truck/gun analogy is retarded and gave my reasons for it, and your reply was "that does not make ALL ANALOGIES invalid" - something i never claimed.
so if i was just "nitpicking language" and this wasn't a strawman, that means you think it does not make THIS analogy invalid, right?

if that is the case, why can't you just state that instead of making vague remarks about your moronic strawmen?

i mean sure, it's a ridiculous position, but at least it's an opinion. your dishonest attacks other ppl's opinions by misrepresenting them rather than addressing their arguments and stating your own, your pathetic attempts to weasel out of even the most obvious fallacious claims and tactics you use...
it's almost like you're used to getting away with this shit and can't handle getting called out for it...

calling people retarded and pointing out A difference that exists between two things is not a legitimate reason to throw out the analogy or observation. you got triggered that I said "all", as it pertains to gun analogies it could be used against. you have a breakdown in reading comprehension and think everything is a strawman and start insulting people when you are wrong and hear things you dont like. time and again you demonstrate thgat you are mentally unfit for mature intellectual discussion. total waste of time aside from correcting the record for 3rd party onlookers.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Oct 5 2017 12:27pm

let's state for the "record" that it was YOU who got so triggered that i pointed out how flawed the gun / truck analogy is that you immediately had to create your little strawman...
your pathetic deflections and ad hominems won't hide the fact that you are desperately avoiding the topic and making a clear statement if you agree with the analogy or not, just flimsy excuses and fallacious "arguments"...

there was no strawman you are just acting autistic and refusing to read what I said in good faith.

You started out by saying its retarded and calling people simple-minded gun nuts when you saw them mention a legitimate observation you didnt like.



throwing around words like pathetic deflections and desperately avioding over and over to make yourself feel good doesn't actually make what you are saying have merit.
I already directly answered the question.
If you need a more specific answer to a specific scenario to appease your ego, feel free to pose another question instead of childish ranting about me avoiding it.
it also wouldnt kill you to actually respond to peoples points instead of insulting them and carrying on with your offended buzzwords acting like they are wrong and evil without actually logically arguing anything.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Oct 5 2017 12:42pm

ok, what is the "legitimate observation" you are refering to? and how, in your opinion, does it justify the comparison between trucks and guns that i reject?

The observation is that people dont really call for stricter 'truck control' when someone uses a truck to kill a bunch of people, but they do for guns.
there is nothing inherently wrong with the observation, even if there are differences between guns and trucks, and even if you dont like it.
Its not "retarded".

if those were just two independent observations, fair enough. but we both know that's not the talking point. the talking point is "no one calls for truck control when some madman kills people with a truck, and therefore no one should do the same for guns" - and that's where the distinction between an object designed to kill and an object designed for transportation and actually constantly improved to be SAFER comes into play.

pretending i called the observation itself "retarded" is just dishonest, i called the talking point equating trucks to guns "retarded". really shocking that i have to explain that to you.

Why don't you guys get a room?

#tbt