Our SOP says...

[beevul]

102. Ah yes, the "alert" gambit...

"A number of members have made personal attacks against me that have been hidden."

Uh huh.

And would you like for those of us who post here, to link all the ones which were hidden that weren't personal attacks on you, to compare to selected posts of yours which are allowed to stand?

I'm thinking not, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, and well have a big show and tell.


"I am accused of misrepresenting arguments when I interrogate someone's evidence: That happened when I took apart the gunner interpretation of the GAO report on gun trafficking to Mexico, when I just challenged someone on their argument about Chicago, and when I tired, seemingly without success, to understand someone's point about the relationship of suicides to stats on gun deaths. If someone throws a fit and accuses me of lying rather than clarifying their position, that is not my fault and it certainly doesn't facilitate comprehension of your argument. It appears to me to be a method of deflection. People are used to a certain script, and I have noticed a tendency to deflect efforts to penetrate those arguments by exclaiming outrage. People want to claim they are for extended background checks while opposing actual bills that would mandate those checks and systematically arguing that such checks won't prevent crime. It appears to me that people have convinced themselves that a certain script is true and react very hostilely when that script is challenged. If there is some particular incivility you don't like, that is what the alert system is for."

That's all really fine and good, and I'm not going to address every little thing you say, except to say that leaning on the "that's what the jury system is for" argument is useless. Everyone knows the jury system is broken.

Please, assert otherwise.

"You also have repeatedly misrepresented my views in claiming I want to ban all guns, when I have NEVER said such a thing."

Show where I repeatedly claimed you want to ban all guns. Note, that you did say that I claimed numerous times, that you want to ban all guns.

Another ipnabla until you substantiate this ridiculous assertion.

"I have also observed that the gun activists here treat every single gun control advocate with complete disdain and scorn."

Wait.

"People here appear to respect no one who disagrees with them."

For.

"That of course is your choice, but I find strange your choice of venue for cultivating outrage at gun control activists."

It.


This is a tale of the earned.

That scorn you speak of...every time one of you opines "they have blood on their hands", "they care nothing for lives", "they care nothing for children"...or any other number of nasty insinuations...you lot earn that scorn.

On the other hand, many of you, have not earned our respect. Some have. But many have not.

You either earn it or you don't.

And lastly, you couldn't be more wrong, about cultivating outrage. We pro-gun people generally want to be left alone about the gun issue. its not us who cultivates outrage at gun control activists, its the gun control activists. See "they have blood on their hands", and "they care more about guns than children", and "they're compensating", and on and on and on.