Need you guys to clear something up for me...

[AustinChief]

OK I need to know if I'm going nuts or if someone is just painfully stupid.. so please interpret the following exchange and vote on the meaning...

Person A: "That's the third time you've accused me of getting my research from the media.

This will be the third time I'll reiterate that my arguments largely mirror those of various police groups.

I fail to understand why that is difficult for you to grasp.

Rhetorical device, I guess."

Person B: "Not your research, your opinions. I could care less where you claim to get your bogus "research." I find it impossible to believe you "thought up" your opinions on your own. Why? because no one who actually THINKS could possibly come to the insanely stupid conclusions you have spewed so far in this thread."

Person A: "I have no idea what this means. Not only do police groups largely not conduct research, their entire existence is for backing policy proposals. So you're wrong in about every way you can be wrong.

You do know that, right? That police groups regularly, routinely, comprehensively offer policy proposals?

That means they've developed opinions. Largely on their own experience and the backs of existing research that other people performed.

The research I've pointed to all thread is based on the same research that police groups rely on, and my proposals to policy are almost identical to what they've been pushing for decades.

Separate thy head from thy ass."

Person B: "You are too ****ing stupid to even have a discussion with. I am getting tired of having to dumb down every ****ing post so that you can follow along."

OK, now was Person B trying to say:

that police groups aren't offering opinions, they're conducting research

that Person A gets his opinions from the media

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

The POINT of this thread is to illustrate your complete inability to follow what is being discussed.

My inability to follow?

Who's the mastermind behind these countless strawmen:

• I'm inventing a conspiracy.
• I've argued that the NRA has total control over CDC grants.
• That I want the CDC to push my agenda.
• That I'm arguing the Swiss are less like their neighbors than we are.
• That I believe gun violence is an epidemic because people are sad over Sandy Hook.
• That I don't care what makes a gun effective as a mass killing machine.
• That I want to ban scary looking things.
• That I support a "free for all" when it comes to voting.

All while you continue to willfully ignore my corrections on the "get my opinions from The Media" bullshit. Which, by the way, you just did. Again.

Remove the log from thine own eye. You are not doing yourself a service by calling attention to foibles that you commit in droves.

[Direckshun]

Great thread.

[|Zach|]

[CrazyPhuD]

Make the person debate themselves it's your only hope.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

Make the person debate themselves it's your only hope.

God that is cool.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

My inability to follow?

Remove the log from thine own eye. You are not doing yourself a service by calling attention to foibles that you commit in droves.

Are you really this stupid?

How did you miss the point YET AGAIN? (it really is the height of comedy that in the thread illustrating your inability to follow along, you fail to follow along)

Let's try one more approach...

You made the following statement "You just argued that police groups aren't offering opinions, they're conducting research." Right? Still with me so far? Ok, the problem is... that statement is completely out of left field. There is absolutely nothing that would lead anyone with even modest reading comprehension skill to make that statement. At no point during the discussion could what I was saying possibly be construed to mean this. Now, HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART SO PAY ATTENTION. My issue (and the purpose of this thread) is not the obviously false content of your statement. It's the fact that somehow you thought it was an appropriate response that followed logically from what was being discussed. THAT proves to me that if you aren't consistently smart enough to follow along with very simple parts of the discussion, there is certainly no hope for you to parse the more complex or nuanced sections.

So, please, explain to all of us here how the **** you came to think that your statement was correct or in any way illustrated what I was saying. Yes, we all know that you claim to not get your opinions from the media... leave that off the table... what we all want to know is what was the convoluted thought process that led you to think that I was saying anything remotely close to what you claimed.

[theelusiveeightrop]

I believe all things MSNBC

[Radar Chief]

The reason the rhetoric he's claiming to get from police groups looks like what the MSM pushes is because it is. Police groups have historically been backers of every piece of gun grabbing legislation to come along. Which I'm sure is why Direcksun has latched onto their rhetoric.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

Police groups have historically been backers of every piece of gun grabbing legislation to come along. Which I'm sure is why Direcksun has latched onto their rhetoric.

I don't think there's anything wrong with "latching" onto opinions from experts whose arguments seem compelling.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Yes, we all know that you claim to not get your opinions from the media...

Halle-****ing-lujah.

We have arrived at our destination. You may now move freely throughout the cabin.

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't think there's anything wrong with "latching" onto opinions from experts whose arguments seem compelling.

and by experts do you mean teleprompter reading minions with political agendas?

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Halle-****ing-lujah.

We have arrived at our destination. You may now move freely throughout the cabin.

THIS is what you took away from that post? My God you truly are a single minded moron.

#1 I told you to leave that off the table.. it has nothing to do with the point of this thread ... and yet you again demonstrate a complete inability to follow

#2 there was never any doubt about what you CLAIM, no one has argued the point, we have instead ignored it and continued to say that you are a left wing media parrot because no matter how often you CLAIM otherwise, that is what we believe ... there really isn't anything you are going to do or say to alter that ... but again, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the point of this read

#3 You have failed (yet again) to explain to us what your thought process was that led you to make the asinine statement - "You just argued that police groups aren't offering opinions, they're conducting research." NOTHING in our exchange leading up to that point would indicate that I was saying anything remotely close to this. AND THIS IS THE PROBLEM... if you can't accurately parse simple exchanges like the one in the OP, how can any of us believe you can keep up with the more complex or nuanced ones?

NOW do you see the point?

[cdcox]

Person B is not meaningfully engaging in conversation or debate. He or she offers pejorative attacks in place of discourse. That person is not worthy of engaging in adult conversation.

[cdcox]

Oh, shit Person B is AustinChief?

Sorry brah, need to calm down and explain your opinions more clearly and back off calling someone an idiot. Maybe there was something earlier in the conversation that provided more context, but from what was posted, I only saw someone ranting.

[cdcox]

Reading a third time, it is clear that you were saying that Direckshun got his opinions from the media. But the logic by which you reached that conclusion is faulty. You have to understand that reasonable people are going to come to different opinions on certain matters, no matter how strongly you disagree with that opinion.