cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I got a pretty consistent and negative impression off the entire sequence of posts. I could also be wrong.Only if the sentiment wasn’t meant.
Like I said, I could be wrong.
Yesterday's Mass Shooting.
- Thread starter Unclebaldrick
- Start date
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
There was mention of “sport” shooting. I’m hoping the shooting squirrels part isn’t what’s considered sport.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
as an (inactive) member Varmint Hunters’ Association, my news there is bad.
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
My point was I don’t believe the minutia laden posts written by Nope had malicious intent.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
No, not malicious so much as combatively stubborn even when effectively contradicted, which is similarly distracting in an annoying way. Malice is not necessary to be, like, a drag.
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
doublejj
Well-Known Member
Yep....Ruger Mini14 5.56 NATO
Last edited:
doublejj
Well-Known Member
hunt the ones that are living around grain fields. The barley fields in central Cali grow some tasty fat hogs...
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
No. This is an M14.
doublejj
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I could be wrong. But then again, he showed up with no other posts to tell us about itself. Then posts on an off topic that is pretty much irrelevant to anybody except maybe terrorists and law enforcement. Then argues and nitpicks around the subject. If it hangs around and communicates like something other than a gun nut troll, I can change my mind.Only if the sentiment wasn’t meant.
Like I said, I could be wrong.
People died in these events and there it is talking about something that has nothing to do with the tragedy. Because I believe it was just having some fun by effing with this thread in classic troll fashion, in my opinion, it was mocking the murder of LGBTQ people and other innocent people..
That kind of post is a classic logical fallacy argument that is used again and again by people who have reasons other than people getting to the truth or having an honest discussion. My opinion doesn't matter to anybody but myself. From it's behavior and what it said, I think it was trolling and choose not to feed it.
Red Herring: Using Irrelevant Information as a Distraction – Effectiviology
effectiviology.com
A red herring is a piece of information that’s meant to distract people from something important in a misleading manner. Red herrings are usually used either as a literary device, such as when an author uses a side character to divert attention from another character, or as a rhetoric technique, such as when someone responds to a question with unrelated information in order to hide their refusal to answer the original question.
When it comes to rhetoric, the use of red herrings is often referred to as the ‘red herring fallacy’. The red herring fallacy is a logical fallacy where someone presents irrelevant information in an attempt to distract others from a topic that’s being discussed, often to avoid a question or shift the discussion in a new direction. For example, if a politician is asked how they feel about a certain policy, they might use the red herring fallacy by discussing how they feel about a related topic instead, to distract people from their failure to answer the original question.
Because red herrings are frequently used in a variety of contexts, it’s important to understand this concept. As such, in the following article you will see examples of red herrings, learn more about red herrings and about the red herring fallacy, and understand how you can properly respond to people who use red herrings in a fallacious manner.
How to respond to red herrings
The first step to responding to a fallacious red herring is to recognize that a red herring has been used. You can do this by asking yourself whether the information that’s been presented is relevant to the topic at hand, or whether it’s meant to distract you or others from what’s being discussed, often as a way to avoid a question or shift the discussion in a new direction.
Once you recognize that a red herring was used, there are several things that you can do in response:
- Ask the person who used the red herring to justify it. This can be especially beneficial in cases where you’re unsure if something that was mentioned is a red herring or not. However, this can also be useful in cases where you know for certain that the other person used a red herring on purpose, because it shows your willingness to engage in a discussion, and highlights the flaws with the other person’s reasoning.
- Point out the red herring and explain why it’s fallacious. Specifically, you should show that the red herring is irrelevant to the original line of discussion, and that it’s likely meant as a way to distract people.
- Redirect the conversation back to the original line of discussion. You can do this in various ways, depending on the circumstances. For example, if the red herring was used to evade a question, you can repeat that question. Note that if the other person decides to keep using red herrings, sticking to the original line of discussion can lead to unproductive dialogue, where people are talking at each other instead of with each other. However, this approach can still be beneficial in some cases, such as when you want to highlight your opponent’s attempts to avoid the topic.
- Accept the red herring and move on with the discussion. Though this means accepting fallacious reasoning, it is sometimes the only way to ensure that the discussion continues in a reasonable and productive manner, which makes it the best course of action in some cases.
- Disengage from the discussion. Sometimes, you might realize that there is simply no point to the discussion, for example if the other person keeps shifting the topic instead of saying anything of value, in which case the best course of action might be to simply drop the discussion. Note that, if you decide to do this, it might be beneficial to state why you’re doing so, and potentially to add that you’d be open to talking again if the other person would be willing to stop using the red herrings.
I first pointed out the red herring and explained why it was fallacious. When it continued to push its dumb ass line of reasoning, I chose to disengage from the discussion with nope. I also add that I'm not engaged in discussion of people posting pictures of their guns. I don't think its appropriate in a thread about a recent mass murder.
But that's just me. They can do as they will. I'm just not going to participate.
Last edited:
DoubleAtotheRON
Well-Known Member
Hang onto that… they’re nice shooters, as I’m sure you know.
doublejj
Well-Known Member
I have a folding stock for it as well. But it shoots better with the full stock. With Leopold scope it shoots pretty flat out to about 300yds.
DoubleAtotheRON
Well-Known Member
Sweet!… yeah, you just can’t get that stability without the full stock… looks bad ass tho!
doublejj
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Those we lost in the Club Q shooting
Kelly Loving, Daniel Aston, Derek Rump, Ashley Paugh and Raymond Green Vance were killed in the attack on the LGBTQ club in Colorado Springs.
www.cpr.org
A bartender living his dream. A 22-year-old with a “bright smile.” A trans woman who helped teach other trans women how to be resilient. A mother of an 11-year-old. A performer who loved ’80s music and dancing.
The family and friends of five people killed Saturday night in a shooting at Club Q, an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs, said they were shocked and saddened by the news of their deaths.
Authorities identified the victims in a news conference Monday afternoon.
The hate has got to stop. Most people, those who sympathize with policies to the right or left or center don't approve of political violence. Or at least that's what they say when asked. They aren't the problem. The source of this problem lies with political leaders who scapegoat for political gain. The end result of this problem is that a nut case decides to act on the rabble-rousing that right wing radical leaders use to get attention.
Like Boebert who equates LGBTQ with pedophiles or falsely claim that people from the gay and queer community are grooming children to become like them. They even managed to pass laws in some states to "solve" this problem that doesn't exist. Also DeSantis, also Ted Cruz.
It has to stop.
This isn't really about guns, it's about hate and the people who manipulate others using hateful language.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Lauren Boebert defends her past anti-LGBTQ and anti-trans tweets during KOA radio interview in wake of Club Q shooting
Previously, Boebert tweeted that parents should take their kids to church and not drag bars, and that drag queens should stay out of her district.
www.cpr.org
Lauren Boebert defends her past anti-LGBTQ and anti-trans tweets during KOA radio interview in wake of Club Q shooting
In the wake of the shooting at the LBGTQ Club Q in Colorado Springs, Rep. Lauren Boebert is defending her past anti-LGBTQ and anti-transgender tweets.
Boebert said it was “disgusting” to blame her for what happened or say she “had bad rhetoric about the LGBT community,” during an interview with KOA’s Ross Kaminsky on Tuesday.
“That is completely false. I have never had bad rhetoric towards anyone and their personal preference as an adult,” she told Kaminsky. “What I've criticized is the sexualization of our children. And I've criticized men dressing up as caricatures of women.”
Boebert's remarks in the interview also match a trend in anti-LGBTQ and anti-trans rhetoric. The term “grooming” is used to describe how child molesters entrap and abuse their victims, but in recent years has been co-opted and used by opponents of drag shows and the LGBTQ community.
Colorado’s first openly transgender lawmaker, state Rep. Brianna Titone, also tweeted that Boebert helped create the atmosphere for the attack.
“You spreading tropes and insults contributed to the hatred for us,” she wrote.
The police have not yet released a motive for the shooting on Saturday. Five people were killed and another 18 injured when a 22-year-old man entered the club and started shooting.
Never used bad rhetoric? Hey Lauren, you are an effing liar.
Stay away or what? Lauren? What are you trying to say? Is free speech the domain of the radical right and not anybody else?
Maybe this post belongs in a thread about GOP MAGA fascism. Because applying a double standard regarding the right to free speech is what fascists do.
doublejj
Well-Known Member
San Francisco police propose using robots capable of ‘deadly force’
City’s board of supervisors to consider proposal involving remote-controlled devices
The San Francisco police department has proposed that it be allowed to use robots with “deadly force” while responding to incidents
San Francisco police propose using robots capable of ‘deadly force’
City’s board of supervisors to consider proposal involving remote-controlled devices
www.theguardian.com
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Breaking Down The Suspected Club Q Shooter’s Online Profile
29,219 views Nov 24, 2022
NBC News’ Ben Collins explains what the online profile of the suspect in the Club Q shooting in Colorado Springs, Colorado, could indicate about a possible motive for the mass shooting and whether it could signal possible hate crimes.
DoubleAtotheRON
Well-Known Member
Well, at least thier gas is cheaper now….
