Gun owners - Have you apologised for a spree killing recently?

a reply to: NavyDoc

What it was is fairly obvious. The method chosen shows the underlying bias. It wasn't that clever.

Indeed.
All you need to do is look at the member's posting history concerning guns. There's no mystery to it.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
It started out that way. OP thought he was being clever and part of an anti-gun agenda, it seems. Why pick on law abiding gun owners? He could have said why don't gays come out more against pedophiles or environmentalists apologize for ELF terrorists.

Obvious agenda is obvious.

Do you believe all pedophiles are homosexuals?

a reply to: NavyDoc

Regardless of his opinion on guns, that wasn't the point he was trying to make in the OP. He was creating a parallel to give you a springboard to understand his position on how we treat muslims. It was pretty obvious. Only an idiot would ask gun owners to demonstrate against spree killers.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

Regardless of his opinion on guns, that wasn't the point he was trying to make in the OP. He was creating a parallel to give you a springboard to understand his position on how we treat muslims. It was pretty obvious. Only an idiot would ask gun owners to demonstrate against spree killers.

Actually, the OP stated that he was using satire.
Satire is used to shame a segment of the population.
He may have shamed two birds with one troll, but he has an agenda.

originally posted by: butcherguy
Satire is used to shame a segment of the population.

The shame wasn't aimed at gun owners, it was aimed at Islamophobes. It used gun owners to paint the picture, quite well, I might add. Direct First and Second Amendment comparisons.

a reply to: butcherguy

Yes, he did state that he was using satire, but apparently you are unfamiliar with how satire is crafted. Satire is crafted by taking a similar situation and over exaggerating it to ridiculous levels so that when you apply the same argument being pushed forth by the satire, it sounds equally ridiculous when applied to the actual argument. During the course of the satire, it is quite clear that the argument being pushed forth isn't a serious argument.

Though if I'm wrong, then Jonathan Swift must have REALLY wanted to cook and eat babies right?

there is no denying now that most Americans are addicted to drugs alcohol violence and all sorts of emotional problems.

If you want America to get better it is not because you're not better your neighbors aren't better we are sick and hurting on a very personal level all of us that is one thing that unites us is the misery that most of us do feel in this world and this misery is not bought on by a lack of intelligence but because we live in a system that is not biologically comfortable cuz of the little time we've had genetically to adjust to such systems

a reply to: butcherguy

Yeah. They call them terrorists.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

Yes, he did state that he was using satire, but apparently you are unfamiliar with how satire is crafted. Satire is crafted by taking a similar situation and over exaggerating it to ridiculous levels so that when you apply the same argument being pushed forth by the satire, it sounds equally ridiculous when applied to the actual argument. During the course of the satire, it is quite clear that the argument being pushed forth isn't a serious argument.

Though if I'm wrong, then Jonathan Swift must have REALLY wanted to cook and eat babies right?

Hardly.
I am entirely aware of what satire is.
I read Jonathan Swift while you were probably in diapers (1968).

Look at the OP's posting history and decide if you believe that he picked guns as the means of his satire wholly by accident.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: butcherguy

Yeah. They call them terrorists.

I guess you missed the point.
They are Islamic terrorists, as much as so many want to deny it. They use Islam as the basis of their terror.

a reply to: NavyDoc

That may well be your perspective. From where I'm sitting the analogy works perfectly.

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: butcherguy
Satire is used to shame a segment of the population.

The shame wasn't aimed at gun owners, it was aimed at Islamophobes. It used gun owners to paint the picture, quite well, I might add. Direct First and Second Amendment comparisons.

As a troll thread, this worked well to shame two different groups.
Islamophobes and those that support the 2nd Amendment. The satire was aimed at the Islamophobes.... The troll thread worked to shame gun owners. I guess you can't comprehend what I am saying. Maybe someday you will.

a reply to: butcherguy

Even if you are right, it is irrelevant to the point. It's only your own sensibilities that are making the gun control element important. Whether one is anti gun or not doesn't change the message that everyone is trying soooo hard to obfuscate.

That being the case, you'll understand the sensibilities of Muslim members reading anti-Islam hate posts after every atrocity.

Job done.

Here is the thing I find Ironic

Mqny that do not get the satire or disagree with it always go on about how a gun is just a tool like a hammer or a car, not evil, its the human that's use it that are evil.

And unlike many Brits I agree.

BUT

The fact many of you are getting Irate and throwing a online temper tantrum seems to me to show you view it as more than a tool, its almost like the OP insulted a lover, child or dare I say it religion. If the OP was about a hammer or other tool I doubt many of you would be getting annoyed.



No one is taking your guns in this thread no one is attacking your 2nd amendment, yet the rabid anger in this thread seems to go beyond "just a tool".


If a gun is just a tool like you say then why not just ignore the op?

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: NavyDoc
It started out that way. OP thought he was being clever and part of an anti-gun agenda, it seems. Why pick on law abiding gun owners? He could have said why don't gays come out more against pedophiles or environmentalists apologize for ELF terrorists.

Obvious agenda is obvious.

Do you believe all pedophiles are homosexuals?

No I don't and, as such, I presented that as an example of an equally preposterous connection.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

Regardless of his opinion on guns, that wasn't the point he was trying to make in the OP. He was creating a parallel to give you a springboard to understand his position on how we treat muslims. It was pretty obvious. Only an idiot would ask gun owners to demonstrate against spree killers.

There must be an awful lot of idiots out there, because that is not an uncommon accusation.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Here is the thing I find Ironic

Maybe that do not get the satire or disagree with it always go on about how a gun is just a tool like a hammer or a car, not evil, its the human that's use it that are evil.

And unlike many Brits I agree.

BUT

The fact many of you are getting Irate and throwing a online temper tantrum seems to me to show you view it as more than a tool, its almost like the OP insulted a lover, child or dare I say it religion. If the OP was about a hammer or other tool I doubt many of you would be getting annoyed.



No one is taking your guns in this thread no one is attacking your 2nd amendment, yet the rabid anger in this thread seems to go beyond "just a tool".


If a gun is just a tool like you say then why not just ignore the op?

Firstly, pointing something out is neither being irate nor throwing a temper tantrum.

Secondly, if he used a different example, say gay men not protesting pedophiles enough, and a gay man pointed out how bigoted the example used was, would he get the same negative "STFU" response?

a reply to: butcherguy

Yes they do use Islam for their terrorism, do you think Muslims appreciate that? I know they don't so they call them terrorists.

Abortion clinic bombers use Christianity for their terrorism, why is their no outrage and scorn and calling for the eradication of Christianity?

Using religion as a tool, as a weapon pretty much rules a person out as one of the faithful.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

Yes, he did state that he was using satire, but apparently you are unfamiliar with how satire is crafted. Satire is crafted by taking a similar situation and over exaggerating it to ridiculous levels so that when you apply the same argument being pushed forth by the satire, it sounds equally ridiculous when applied to the actual argument. During the course of the satire, it is quite clear that the argument being pushed forth isn't a serious argument.

Though if I'm wrong, then Jonathan Swift must have REALLY wanted to cook and eat babies right?

Hardly.
I am entirely aware of what satire is.
I read Jonathan Swift while you were probably in diapers (1968).

Look at the OP's posting history and decide if you believe that he picked guns as the means of his satire wholly by accident.

You may know what it is, but you aren't exactly demonstrating a good awareness of how it works. Though you are making a GREAT case for being one of THESE people:
5 Satirists Attacked by People Who Totally Missed the Point

a reply to: waynos
Obfuscating?
I posted how i felt about Muslims early in the thread, so everyone is not obfuscating.

That being the case, you'll understand the sensibilities of Muslim members reading anti-Islam hate posts after every atrocity.

I understood it well before this thread was started.