Mass shooting in California.

[1bad65]

This mass shooting in California happened because of the National Rifle Association and Republicans. Period.

Wrong. It happened because some muslims were following their holy book. Put the blame squarely where it belongs, and don't use tragedy to score political points.

They still don't want to keep terrorists from legally purchasing these deadly assault rifles.

No, they don't. You're using hyperbole and scare tactics instead of being honest. Pathetic really.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...n-control-laws

Criminals don't obey laws! What part of this don't you liberals understand? It's only been that way forever:

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato

Disarming the good people is ridiculous, and will only result in more victims. Remember, criminals love unarmed victims.

[1bad65]

I love the way you didn't quote the point I made about Nacho, Emmanuel Steward and Bert Sugar.

You are such a douche....lol

Wow, you're going to concentrate on an analogy I used instead of the actual issue at hand and the facts I presented. That's quite telling.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

Wow, you're going to concentrate on an analogy I used instead of the actual issue at hand and the facts I presented. That's quite telling.

We were discussing another point within the conversation. Instead of just saying "hey, that's a good point, I agree and I was wrong". You ignore it and act as if it never took place.

This is why we can't discuss things. You argue to win arguments, I argue to find the truth. If I'm wrong, I admit it. It's easy, you should try it one day.

"First step in learning is humility"- Confucius

[1bad65]

We were discussing another point within the conversation. Instead of just saying "hey, that's a good point, I agree and I was wrong". You ignore it and act as if it never took place.

Dude, it was an analogy!!

Seriously, you're arguing about an analogy and ignoring the actual topic and the facts presented you.

Ok, the analogy was not great. got me. Now address the rest of it....

This is why we can't discuss things. You argue to win arguments, I argue to find the truth. If I'm wrong, I admit it. It's easy, you should try it one day.

No, I debate to see if my views and beliefs can stand up in the arena of ideas. Again, don't try and speak for me. I've had to tell you this twice now in the last two days.

If you want to know things about me, just ask me. But please, don't continue to try and speak for me. It's annoying, and a prime reason you get called out for making strawman arguments.

"First step in learning is humility"- Confucius

Sounds right. That's how my mind works, actually. Once I find I am lacking in topics of interest to me, I educate myself on said topics. I've tried to get you to do the same, but it seems you're happy being completely clueless about topics and activities you choose to engage in. Again, that's quite telling.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

Dude, it was an analogy!!

Seriously, you're arguing about an analogy and ignoring the actual topic and the facts presented you.

Ok, the analogy was not great. got me. Now address the rest of it....

It was an analogy that was core to the discussion we were having. You made the analogy not me btw. You said that me being a trainer and ex fighter, I know more about boxing than someone who never did those things. It pertained to the conversation we were having about religion in which you said I can't understand it as well as you do because I'm an atheist.

I made the analogy to point out that is ABSURD. You don't have to belong to a religion, or have boxed to understand either one of those as my analogy pointed out. You ignored it because you know you were wrong and instead of being a man about it, you acted as if that conversation never took place.

You are DISHONEST.

No, I debate to see if my views and beliefs can stand up in the arena of ideas. Again, don't try and speak for me. I've had to tell you this twice now in the last two days.

If you want to know things about me, just ask me. But please, don't continue to try and speak for me. It's annoying, and a prime reason you get called out for making strawman arguments.

This isn't debate..lol we are having a fuking conversation in a boxing forum about politics, religion and current events for fuks sake. Dude, you take this place WAYYYYY to fukin serious. It's ok to say "I'm wrong, good point", but you don't even when you are CLEARLY wrong. You are not humble, you are dishonest and you divert the conversation when it's not going your way and everyone who has had discussions with you points it out.

Sounds right. That's how my mind works, actually. Once I find I am lacking in topics of interest to me, I educate myself on said topics. I've tried to get you to do the same, but it seems you're happy being completely clueless about topics and activities you choose to engage in. Again, that's quite telling.

No you fukin don't.....lol How many times in our conversations about evolution or science have I given you a link and YOU DON'T EVEN READ IT.

You don't want to know the truth, you want to spout your ideological bull**** on people and when they make a good point or show you are wrong you divert the conversation, ignore it or scream strawman and act like you are in a court of law to act like you didn't take an L.

[1bad65]

You said that me being a trainer and ex fighter, I know more about boxing than someone who never did those things.

Strawman. I said you know more about boxing than "me", not "someone who never did those things".

I must ask, are you really clueless when it comes to basic English (and even copy-and-pasting), or are you just hell bent on making strawman arguments over and over?

It pertained to the conversation we were having about religion in which you said I can't understand it as well as you do because I'm an atheist.

Another strawman argument, as I said no such thing. I said I know the religion more because I've been in it most of my life, while you are one that "doesn't study the subject matter, but instead does a little online research just looking for good talking points to use in a debate."

I actually believe you could learn plenty about my religion if you so chose to. But as I pointed out, you've chosen to only learn enough about it that you think will somehow win you debates on said religion.

You are DISHONEST.

Speak for yourself, as you're the one attributing statements to me I never made.

This isn't debate..

Yes, it is. As for me taking it serious, that's not it at all. I want to have adult debate to see if my views hold up, not a childish insult lobbing contest. After all, what in the world does a contest of insults prove? Nothing, and you know it. Or at least you should.

You are not humble, you are dishonest and you divert the conversation when it's not going your way and everyone who has had discussions with you points it out.

Wrong. Only you have said this. That's hardly "everyone who has had discussions" with me.

How many times in our conversations about evolution or science have I given you a link and YOU DON'T EVEN READ IT.

None, actually. And you should know this as I've on multiple occasions refuted your sources. I actually did it just a few days ago in a debate about crime where you made a specific assertion about crime rates, then proceeded to source it with a source who used other metrics besides crime data to draw a conclusion. If I'm not reading your sources, how can I be refuting them??

You don't want to know the truth, you want to spout your ideological bull**** on people and when they make a good point or show you are wrong you divert the conversation, ignore it or scream strawman and act like you are in a court of law to act like you didn't take an L.

That's laughable, and spoken from pure ignorance. Like I said, take a Debate course and educate yourself. You like to debate, so I don't see why you refuse to at least learn the basics of Debate.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

Strawman. I said you know more about boxing than "me", not "someone who never did those things".

I must ask, are you really clueless when it comes to basic English (and even copy-and-pasting), or are you just hell bent on making strawman arguments over and over?

I'm glad you responded because this is a classic example of your dishonesty and how you want to play lawyer. Let me ask you this, if you say I know more about boxing than you BECAUSE OF MY EXPERIENCE. If you did a little boxing, wouldn't it be logical to assume that I would know more than someone who has ZERO experience?

I mean think about that for a second.

Another strawman argument, as I said no such thing. I said I know the religion more because I've been in it most of my life, while you are one that "doesn't study the subject matter, but instead does a little online research just looking for good talking points to use in a debate."

I actually believe you could learn plenty about my religion if you so chose to. But as I pointed out, you've chosen to only learn enough about it that you think will somehow win you debates on said religion.

You are now creating the strawman. I was a Christian for most of my life. Went to church every Sunday, did my first communion, conformation etc...

How in the fuk do you know what I know? I have been arguably a Christian longer than you since I'm in my early 40's.

Speak for yourself, as you're the one attributing statements to me I never made.

Semantics, it's what you argue to weasel out of points you lose.

Yes, it is. As for me taking it serious, that's not it at all. I want to have adult debate to see if my views hold up, not a childish insult lobbing contest. After all, what in the world does a contest of insults prove? Nothing, and you know it. Or at least you should.

It's not an insult if it's true. You are dishonest and a weasel.

Wrong. Only you have said this. That's hardly "everyone who has had discussions" with me.

hahaha

None, actually. And you should know this as I've on multiple occasions refuted your sources. I actually did it just a few days ago in a debate about crime where you made a specific assertion about crime rates, then proceeded to source it with a source who used other metrics besides crime data to draw a conclusion. If I'm not reading your sources, how can I be refuting them??

Lie

[1bad65]

I'm glad you responded because this is a classic example of your dishonesty and how you want to play lawyer.

Dude, you misquoted me. I called you out on it, and even provided my exact words which proved you indeed attributed words to me I did not say. That's the end of it on that one.

You are now creating the strawman.

AGAIN, don't use words your ignorant of the meaning of. I've had to tell you that multiple times (see a pattern yet?). That said, I'm flattered to be imitated, but please, at least use your own words to debate me.

I was a Christian for most of my life. Went to church every Sunday, did my first communion, conformation etc...

How in the fuk do you know what I know? I have been arguably a Christian longer than you since I'm in my early 40's.

Ok, so that shows you mustn't have paid attention then as your knowledge on the Bible is pretty much nil.

Semantics, it's what you argue to weasel out of points you lose.

It's not "semantics" to anyone with a basic education. So I can see how it confused you. You misquoted me, end of story.

It's not an insult if it's true. You are dishonest and a weasel.

An insult is an insult.

And if you can't state your case like an adult, you have no case to state.

Speaking of, you've now completely stopped trying to debate the topic at hand. Care to return to that?

Lie

No, complete truth. Want me to link to where it happened so we can all see it for ourselves? I'll be glad too...

[DeltaSigChi4]

Wrong. It happened because some muslims were following their holy book. Put the blame squarely where it belongs, and don't use tragedy to score political points.

Where does their holy book make mention of San Bernadino? Please cite the specific page. Moreover, after doing so, provide linked references to all the times you declared that rightwing terrorists with a religious faith of Christianity were using/following their holy book. Since they commit so many more acts of terrorism in this nation, surely you would have that many more instances of claiming this, correct? Oh ... I see ... you are anti- one religion but drop down to your knees to suck off the Priest of another. How many priest cócks have you sucked thus far? Are you getting fúcked by the Cardinal this weekend?

No, they don't. You're using hyperbole and scare tactics instead of being honest. Pathetic really.

What is "Pathetic" is that your fággot ass cannot provide supporting evidence for your claims. Who needs supporting evidence when you can just claim "No, they don't" and call it a wrap. You're as ignorant and stupid as they come. Supporting evidence: your posts.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2401

Criminals don't obey laws! What part of this don't you liberals understand? It's only been that way forever:

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato

Disarming the good people is ridiculous, and will only result in more victims. Remember, criminals love unarmed victims.

Right. Since "Criminals don't obey laws!" why even have laws? Murderers don't follow laws against murder: let's make murder no longer a crime. Rapists don't follow laws against murder: let's make rape no longer a crime. Child molesters don't follow laws against molesting children: let's make molesting children no longer a crime.

This is what you want, right. You are a rightwing, lunatic sleeper cell terrorist after all. All of you are.

Disarming the good people will only result in more victims? Citation required.

You know why a cite is required? Science and the supporting evidence of said science says otherwise, you ******ed monkey.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/201...provide_a.html

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/n...after-shooting

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...-gun-violence/

Go suck the Cardinal's dick.

[1bad65]

Where does their holy book make mention of San Bernadino? Please cite the specific page.

Strawman argument, as I made no claims their holy book specifically mentioned San Bernardino.

Moreover, after doing so, provide linked references to all the times you declared that rightwing terrorists with a religious faith of Christianity were using/following their holy book.

Why? Since I never asserted I said that, why are you asking me to provide examples of me saying that?

? Since they commit so many more acts of terrorism in this nation, surely you would have that many more instances of claiming this, correct?

I'll need you to source that claim before I address your question.

? Oh ... I see ... you are anti- one religion but drop down to your knees to suck off the Priest of another. How many priest cócks have you sucked thus far? Are you getting fúcked by the Cardinal this weekend?

Please, do not lower yourself to personal insults. The next instance will be taken as a concession of the debate on your part. We're both adults here, so please, comport yourself like one. Thank you.

? What is "Pathetic" is that your fággot ass cannot provide supporting evidence for your claims. Who needs supporting evidence when you can just claim "No, they don't" and call it a wrap.

Which specific claims are you asking me to prove/source? Just ask, and I'll be glad to, but do not assert I refused to provide something I have as of yet not been asked to provide.

? You're as ignorant and stupid as they come. Supporting evidence: your posts.

Well considering I can state my case in an adult manner and you cannot, I'd say that says alot about you.

? Right. Since "Criminals don't obey laws!" why even have laws? Murderers don't follow laws against murder: let's make murder no longer a crime. Rapists don't follow laws against murder: let's make rape no longer a crime. Child molesters don't follow laws against molesting children: let's make molesting children no longer a crime.

Hyperbole

? This is what you want, right. You are a rightwing, lunatic sleeper cell terrorist after all. All of you are.

No, that is not what I want. Notice I never called for that.

I'm also not "right wing" in any way. I'm actually the polar opposite, though I'm not "left wing" either. I've been over this before, many times. Keep up please.

? Disarming the good people will only result in more victims? Citation required.

Are you asking me to provide crime figures showing crime is higher in American cities with strict gun control, and that crime went up in Australia after their gun ban? If so, I'll be glad to if asked.

? You know why a cite is required? Science and the supporting evidence of said science says otherwise, you ******ed monkey.

Yes, I understand the concept perfectly. Your problem is you've not asked for cites, you've only lobbed insults like a child. When you ask me in an adult fashion to provide sources, your request will be granted.

As tou your sources, i'll be glad to read them after, and only if, you show you can debate me on an adult level. I believe I recognize one, and have shown it's methodology flaws, but we will see if you can behave like a grown up.

? Go suck the Cardinal's dick.

Like I said, this childishness will stop or I'll have to accept your concession of the debate.

I await your next post, and it will be done in an adult manner or it will be taken as your concession.