Its not a semi-automatic rifle. It is considered the first machine gun, not the first semi-automatic rifle.



so actual truth doesn't matter and doesn't count as a reason to support it. interesting.

Do you think mentioning the existence of earlier automobiles is automatically disingenuous?
Do you think bringing them up automatically implies that they were just as good as modern cars?
no, of course not. those are attributes you are unreasonably pushing onto the claims.




Recognizing actual false equivalences and limp-wristed attempts to posture as a fair-minded centrist doesn't actually make the claims of false equivalence wrong or fender-like and it doesn't make truthful claims disingenuous when you say the word.
Believe it or not false equivalences do exist and you are making some, even if a deranged leftist falsely invokes the term sometimes.

ok i can get more simple if you need me to.

here is a link to the word disingenuous:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous



it is my opinion, since that also seems to need to be said for god knows what reason, that using the term "machine gun" gives the false appearance that this is a "machine gun" as people think of them. as i said before, "machine gun" itself invokes specific 1986 legislation barring them.


now be a good lil boy and go and provide me with source info and definitions that says this is NOT a semi automatic rifle (even though it fires 20 rounds/minute, without reloading) and is a machine gun (even though it fires 20 rounds/minute). i'm just looking for you to present pretty much anything, while snarkily neging me with the "just because you say so" nonsense.

i already said multiple times that technically according to some VERY dated definitions this could be considered a machine gun, i didn't even dispute it. i said that its disingenuous because this classifying as a "machine gun" is anything but simple and frank.

as to the false equivalence, just give it up man. i said one's bad, one's worse. i'm drawing a line so clear i dont even know where you get that. the only thing that could be "equal" here is that they're both bad, which is my opinion. so my opinion is false? go step on some legos to wake you up and then try reading with over a fender level of comprehension before you slam your keyboard again champ.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 18 2019 09:51am

I love the religious fervor that Cam has. It doesn't matter if you're on the same side but have a minor disagreement of definition, any kind of disagreement means you're a heretic and therefore evil.

"hey man i think using machine gun is going a bit far, gives people a bit of the wrong idea"

Here comes this schmuck to make up false claims about me.

I was correct and he falsely called people disingenuous.
Yes i took issue with that and strongly and accurately argued my case. There is nothing wrong with that and it does not mean i am saying he is a heretic or evil.

maybe you just shouldnt use the word "false" for a few days, idk man.

"that puckle gun graphic has to be the most idiotic thing ive ever seen from Turning Point...."

'BS!" I CALL BS!!'

"invoking machine guns at all is disingenuous"


vs


'lolol i just said it was going a bit too far. totally reasonable amiright?'



I will use whatever words i want.
You were wrong. Find your balls, man up and admit it instead of being a wimpy centrist trying to turn this back on me for daring to take issue with the false idiocy you were claiming.

Its cute how you bold what you want. i said, very clearly to most people im sure, that it was the most idiotic thing i'd seen from Turning Point.

perhaps you can provide some other examples of things thesnipa@d2jsp has seen from Turning Point, since you seem in a debunking mood.

Whether or not its the most idiotic thing you've seen from turning point isn't the issue here. Way to miss/avoid the point.

No luck on the search?