Fail Quotes

[R.E.H.W.R.]

Joe's little rant about the Bioshock Infinite Vox Populi.
[yt]1vNQPi9iOSw[/yt]

[Dallas Wildman]

Teh stupid!  It hurts so bad!!!!!

[dallen68]

It's two majority groups calling a corresponding minority group traitors when they aren't.

Oh, okay. In that case, I'm going to say these majority groups aren't a majority, they only act like they are. Also, since treason has a very specific meaning, at least where the United States is concerned, people really need to stop throwing the word around.

As a side note, by the OP's logic, displaying the flag of Mississippi on the fourth of July would be inappropriate, too.

[MrBogosity]

Oh, okay. In that case, I'm going to say these majority groups aren't a majority, they only act like they are. Also, since treason has a very specific meaning, at least where the United States is concerned, people really need to stop throwing the word around.

In fact, since the definition involves making war against the states, wouldn't that make Lincoln the one who committed treason?

[BlameThe1st]

Yet again PZ Myers exposes his statheism. This time, he's replying to a "gun fondler" who argues that we should feel no more threatened by a gun owner than we should by a cop. PZ's rebuttal:

Did he just compare trained police officers with responsibilities, a uniform, and a specific role in the community to random jerkwads with a pistol tucked in their pants? That the police dissuade crime is their job; I would not feel more at ease in a restaurant if everyone was sitting there, armed. Quite the contrary.

If most of us are unarmed, relying on a few delegated officials to suppress crime, it's true, we're less likely to have crime scenes erupting all over the place. If everyone's carrying a gun, we're more likely to have criminal activity that turns into a blazing bloodbath. Not interested. Not convinced at all.

Stats have shown, time and again, that you are more likely to be killed by a cop than a lowly criminal. That should be expected when we grant a minority the sole privilege of utilizing force and coercion on everyone else.

And no, having less people armed does not equal less violent crime. To the contrary, a recent study has shown that open carry laws actually correlate to less murders and other violent crime. This should surprise no one but the gun grabbers.

[BreadGod]

If most of us are unarmed, relying on a few delegated officials to suppress crime, it's true, we're less likely to have crime scenes erupting all over the place. If everyone's carrying a gun, we're more likely to have criminal activity that turns into a blazing bloodbath. Not interested. Not convinced at all.

I burst out laughing when I read that. Gun control advocates seem to live in a fantasy land where if guns are completely banned then there is no crime or murder. Doesn't PZ know that criminals don't obey gun control laws? If most of us are unarmed, then we become easy pickings for criminals. Just look at Chicago. Tightest gun control laws in America, highest murder rate in America. Of course, someone like PZ will say that the criminals in Chicago got their guns from states that have lax gun control laws. If that's the case, then why is it that the states with lax gun control laws have lower crime and murder rates than states that have tight gun control laws?

[dallen68]

In fact, since the definition involves making war against the states, wouldn't that make Lincoln the one who committed treason?

It could certainly be interpreted that way. I think it depends on who declared war, fired the first shot, what ever it is that caused there to be a condition of war.

[evensgrey]

It could certainly be interpreted that way. I think it depends on who declared war, fired the first shot, what ever it is that caused there to be a condition of war.

Well, the condition that started the war would be Lincoln's extortion racket.

[dallen68]

Well, the condition that started the war would be Lincoln's extortion racket.

That had been going on for years. I'm referring to the actual event at which somebody decided it was a war. As in, somebody shot somebody, somebody bombed something, somebody signed a declaration...

[MrBogosity]

It could certainly be interpreted that way. I think it depends on who declared war, fired the first shot, what ever it is that caused there to be a condition of war.

Well, that's what the North claimed: the South were the aggressors because they started the war by firing on Ft. Sumter. But Ft. Sumter is in South Carolina, and although the Feds ceded most of their other forts (the Constitution doesn't allow the Feds to own property in a state without that state's permission), they held on to Ft. Sumter so they could blockade the Port of Charleston and make incoming ships pay the tariffs--tariffs to the NORTH even though the South had seceded..

So, with that in mind, who were the aggressors?

[evensgrey]

That had been going on for years. I'm referring to the actual event at which somebody decided it was a war. As in, somebody shot somebody, somebody bombed something, somebody signed a declaration...

Well, that would be the attempt to stop Lincoln's extortion racket once he tried carrying it out in a completely different country from the one he was in the government of.  Perhaps it would have been better had the Confederacy asked the British for assistance with it? It was largely British ships that were being shaken down.

[MrBogosity]

Perhaps it would have been better had the Confederacy asked the British for assistance with it? It was largely British ships that were being shaken down.

Jefferson Davis said the Confederacy would end slavery in perpetuity in exchange for recognition from both Britain and France. France agreed; Britain didn't.

[evensgrey]

Well, that's what the North claimed: the South were the aggressors because they started the war by firing on Ft. Sumter. But Ft. Sumter is in South Carolina, and although the Feds ceded most of their other forts (the Constitution doesn't allow the Feds to own property in a state without that state's permission), they held on to Ft. Sumter so they could blockade the Port of Charleston and make incoming ships pay the tariffs--tariffs to the NORTH even though the South had seceded..

So, with that in mind, who were the aggressors?

IIRC, it wasn't even firing on the actual fort, but on a supply boat trying to run the blockade the Confederacy had on the fort to try and dislodge the soldiers who were, by all the RELEVANT laws (that is, those applicable in the Confederacy and South Carolina and Charleston, which US law had already been determined by SCOTUS to recognize as legitimate), operating an ongoing criminal operation.

[dallen68]

Well, that's what the North claimed: the South were the aggressors because they started the war by firing on Ft. Sumter. But Ft. Sumter is in South Carolina, and although the Feds ceded most of their other forts (the Constitution doesn't allow the Feds to own property in a state without that state's permission), they held on to Ft. Sumter so they could blockade the Port of Charleston and make incoming ships pay the tariffs--tariffs to the NORTH even though the South had seceded..

So, with that in mind, who were the aggressors?

Either way, it would appear the North were the aggressors.

[tnu]

Does somebody want to split this debate about the Civil War off?