pErvin wrote:Forty Two wrote:pErvin, this is ridiculous. You asked who was talking about government action. I told you I was. I showed you where I was, and I showed you where you responded right after my post. I don't care who you were intended to respond to - you didn't specify. However, the point stands, I was talking about what I was talking about and you were responding to me. That's what I was talking about, if you weren't, so be it. But, conversations are not limited to only that which pErvin is talking about.
Of course I was responding to you. I was pointing out how you were interpreting Tero's post wrong. "The point" was Tero's, AS YOU YOURSELF SAID IN YOUR LAST POST.
Look, Tero did not specify either way what he was talking about when he posted the article about toddlers, I responded to the toddler post directing my thought at the allocation of resources. That is one aspect of what the toddler article might involve. That's what I addressed, and then Tero and I had a back and forth. I don't really care what you think the main point was, or what you think Tero's point was in raising the toddler/gun article in the first place. I'm not limited by what you or he want to talk about.
pErvin wrote:
And my question "who's talking about government" was rhetorical,
Who gives a fuck what you are questioning? I was talking about government and the allocation of resources -- among other things. Fuck off.
pErvin wrote:
as clearly you were and clearly I was trying to make the point to you that Tero never said anything about government. So your replies were non-sequiturs. FFS, this is basic English and it's why there is no point debating you.
In his initial post on the toddler article, he provided no meaningful comment or suggestion of what the article would mean other than as a statement of fact. True, he said nothing about government. I did. That's why I said, in response to your question, that that's what I was talking about. My replies were not "non sequiturs" because he hadn't made an argument. He posted an article. I did not, therefore, draw a conclusion that didn't follow from his argument. I proposed a new argument based on the post about the toddler shootings.
This is his post -
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1701360 No argument. No suggestion of what it means or why he posted it. Just "toddlers v terrorists" and a quote from the article, and link. Three or four people posted funny comments, and then I responded to the article suggesting an argument about what western countries should do with that kind of information. That was my argument. That's what I was talking about. I was not countering any argument made by Tero because he had merely posted an article discussing a statistic on toddler shootings. I did not argue that he was wrong. I used the information posted to create an actual point to discuss.
You don't want to talk about it, fine? You don't think it's what Tero had in mind when posting it? Fine. But, that does not limit my ability to create a discussion path, for the love of fucking god.
Look - by your logic, nobody should post anything about the article -- since tero just posted the article, with ZERO COMMENT OR ARGUMENT OR DISCUSSION - it's obvious Tero just wanted to make everyone aware of the statistic. And, since all he was doing was just stating a fact with a link, then that's all anyone else can do with it, because Tero sets the limits of discussion on a point of fact he posts. Especially in a wide-ranging thread entitled "Only in America" which he did not create, and you did not create....
Criminy, dude... you are so weird. Fuck. Tero posted an article. It's open for discussion. I opened a line of discussion. Your contribution - as is common shtick for you - is not to discuss it, but to jump in, piss all over it, and start screaming and bleating about how it shouldn't be discussed, or how it wasn't someone else's point, or it's been explained before so there shouldn't be any more discussion. Fuck off, man. If you don't want to talk about it, don't. But, you aren't the fucking police of this board, and you're not the arbiter of what discussion streams can be gone down.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
