Guns

[Overdriven]

If you own a gun in the UK (illegally) you should be shot in the hand. If you have a gun in the UK, which is legal, but not yours - you should be shot in the leg. If you own a gun, legally, and it's yours... Fare do.

Gun crime heh

 

[ZiggY]

if you get caught with a gun it should be life..which is about 10 years in the uk !

 

[old.Tohtori]

Oh sorry, I thought maybe someone had got the joke. My fault for assuming people had a modicum of a sense of humour or self-deprecation oO

No...noone misunderstood the joke per say, I for one, misunderstood the line completely and asked for you to say it in different termso i could understand.

 

[tris-]

i still dont think my question has been answered, or has it?

 

[Saggy]

i still dont think my question has been answered, or has it?

Naetha doesn't bother to answer on direct questions

 

[Case]

Why does every thread you get involved in Tohtori turn into an arguament? You post absolute crap half the time and total rubbish the rest. If you can`t think of anything worth saying don`t.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Why does every thread you get involved in Tohtori turn into an arguament? You post absolute crap half the time and total rubbish the rest. If you can`t think of anything worth saying don`t.

How about you discuss the matter, like the rest do, and let people have their opinions.

If you think my view is rubbish, or that i post crap, bring forth a counter argument/discussion point or don't bother.

Also i would like to see these "all threads". You mean threads that can be controversial and people can have absolutely different views on a matter?

 

[Case]

Bloodymindedness would be described as someone who refuses to listen to facts and who sticks to their own arguement even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[Case]

I'd love to Tohtori but every post I can find of yours is just arguing for arguing sake. I can`t find even 1 good point or argument that you`ve put forward to discuss.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'd love to Tohtori but every post I can find of yours is just arguing for arguing sake. I can`t find even 1 good point or argument that you`ve put forward to discuss.

And as i've tried to tell gamah and the rest of "you argue for arguing sake!!" patrol, it's not the case.

Sure, my views on things may be different, as are many other peoples, but they are gods the honest truth on my part.

Now if you disagree with me, do bring it up in a normal discussion manner, not by the cop-out "you just argue to argue".

I've said also before that i might not be "linguistically" the best person, and i have a confusing way of bringing my view to light, but that's hardly reason for such "name bashing".

And lately, i think you'll find that it's the people who "dislike my views" that come and discuss a thread only to say "you argue". Now is that at all different from what you accuse me of?

ALSO, how the f*ck can i argue for arguings sake when i'm the first one to discuss a matter and only bring my own view?

 

[Naetha]

again, are you suggesting that we assume everyone is lieing, that people are guilty untill proven innocent instead of vice versa?

Sorry Tris - I wasn't aware that was directed at me, not a deliberate ignore, just trying to get on with some work work

I don't assume that everyone lies at court (in a real world sense) but in a hypothetical sense, because people can lie you have to assume that what we take as the truth, isn't always the truth. This bears no relation to the legal system in the UK of innocent until proven guilty, but you have to assume (and I don't think this is unreasonable) that because we know people lie about other things, that they can lie about things like this.

I gave up on this thread when Tohtori replied to a tongue-in-cheek statement about being bloody minded for the sake of it with a response that was bloody minded for the sake of it. Foolishly I thought he was playing along with the joke. It just goes to prove how wrong we can be.

As for Saggy's question about the difference between a corpse and a happily playing child - that is circumstance or the result. What should be prosecuted in my opinion is the intent. If the intent is the same, and chance intervenes to change an outcome (obviously completely hypothetical, as I believe parallel test-universes haven't been made available for public use yet), but that person still tried to kill the child, then surely the sentence should be the same. This is where the whole lying issue comes in, as intent can never be proved, only assumed, and the weight of the assumption comes from the person under accusation.

Hope that clears up my viewpoint for the non bloody-minded among you, have a good weekend

 

[old.Tohtori]

I gave up on this thread when Tohtori replied to a tongue-in-cheek statement about being bloody minded for the sake of it with a response that was bloody minded for the sake of it. Foolishly I thought he was playing along with the joke. It just goes to prove how wrong we can be.

Honestly, i just didn't know what you meant.

Couldn't understand the joke, 'cause i didn't understand what you were saying. As in, "the words on screen looked right, but the meaning eluded me"

I thought i was being rather polite in asking for a rephrasing, as you know, i'm not English natively so some things i don't understand just 'cause...i don't.

I only, after Case explained what it means, now understand what "bloody minded" means.

 

[Jeremiah]

I cant see any justification for private firearms ownership. They serve no purpose, other than the "intent" of ending life. When your country has to suffer the Dunblane Massacre in order to highlight this issue, you know that its time to see sense.

Oh and I didnt get why people didnt understand Naetha's point of "intent". It does make sense! Even if it would be impossible to implement =)

 

[Gamah]

And as i've tried to tell gamah and the rest of "you argue for arguing sake!!" patrol, it's not the case.

Sure, my views on things may be different, as are many other peoples, but they are gods the honest truth on my part.

Now if you disagree with me, do bring it up in a normal discussion manner, not by the cop-out "you just argue to argue".

I've said also before that i might not be "linguistically" the best person, and i have a confusing way of bringing my view to light, but that's hardly reason for such "name bashing".

And lately, i think you'll find that it's the people who "dislike my views" that come and discuss a thread only to say "you argue". Now is that at all different from what you accuse me of?

ALSO, how the f*ck can i argue for arguings sake when i'm the first one to discuss a matter and only bring my own view?

Anyone see the irony in him disagreeing with case ?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Anyone see the irony in him disagreeing with case ?

Or that the "Tohtori bashers" can't reply to a well put reply?

Ofcourse i disagree when i get attacked!...F*ck...should i just nod and go "Mhm, yup, i'm just that kind of a guy."

 

[tris-]

yes ffs we all know he disagrees on everything, now we gotta live with it. would be pretty shite if we all came into a discussion and had 10 pages of "i agree with the first person".
fact is if he didnt disagree with something 99% of the time, we wouldnt have anyone with an opposing view point.

 

[old.Tohtori]

yes ffs we all know he disagrees on everything, now we gotta live with it. would be pretty shite if we all came into a discussion and had 10 pages of "i agree with the first person".
fact is if he didnt disagree with something 99% of the time, we wouldnt have anyone with an opposing view point.

Now that's probably the first time anyone has said anything about my disagreement, that i can agree on.

I can take people saying "Your views are f*cked up" or "You don't know what the f*ck you're talking about" even, but i REALLY dislike people saying "You argue just to argue."

'cause that's honestly just disrespectful.

Also, i believe, that i often say things people would want to say, but don't dare/think is appropriate to say.