beanman Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Your posts come across as very condescending to me, and I'm guessing I'm not the only one. Agreed, in this case. I think that it was justified given the combination of the confidence level and the demonstrated factual inaccuracy. You have my genuine apologies if it offended you. I'm not offended, just find it a bit annoying sometimes. No need to apologize. Link to comment
carlfense Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I'm not offended, just find it a bit annoying sometimes. Link to comment
HuskerNationNick Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Police Stations? From this morning: http://www.foxnews.c...intcmp=trending Hmmm.... only one dead, the suspect. I guess armed officers didn't prevent more deaths. We can still see what you said yesterday . . . You think a psycho would think twice about walking into a school with a military member or an armed officer? This is why you don't see shootings where guns are allowed. (IE Police Stations, Shooting Ranges, Court Houses, Military Base) You said that we don't see shootings where guns are allowed. Are you now admitting that you were completely wrong about this as well? Why are you nitpicking everything I am saying? Do you get a thrill out of trying to prove people wrong? I also said shootings will happen anywhere, no matter what type of security you have. Do you take that into consideration of your arguments No, your just trying to find something to debate about and instead of having a decent conversation, you make it into a "your wrong and I have a bigger d*ck" contest. Link to comment
beanman Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Police Stations? From this morning: http://www.foxnews.c...intcmp=trending Hmmm.... only one dead, the suspect. I guess armed officers didn't prevent more deaths. We can still see what you said yesterday . . . You think a psycho would think twice about walking into a school with a military member or an armed officer? This is why you don't see shootings where guns are allowed. (IE Police Stations, Shooting Ranges, Court Houses, Military Base) You said that we don't see shootings where guns are allowed. Are you now admitting that you were completely wrong about this as well? Why are you nitpicking everything I am saying? Do you get a thrill out of trying to prove people wrong? I also said shootings will happen anywhere, no matter what type of security you have. Do you take that into consideration of your arguments No, your just trying to find something to debate about and instead of having a decent conversation, you make it into a "your wrong and I have a bigger d*ck" contest. The answer is yes. What I want to see is Carlfense arguing with his woman. The question is, does he let her be right once in awhile just to get some action or not... Link to comment
carlfense Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 What I want to see is Carlfense arguing with his woman. We don't really argue . . . 2 minor fights in 5 years . . . Link to comment
carlfense Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Why are you nitpicking everything I am saying? Do you get a thrill out of trying to prove people wrong? I also said shootings will happen anywhere, no matter what type of security you have. Do you take that into consideration of your arguments No, your just trying to find something to debate about and instead of having a decent conversation, you make it into a "your wrong and I have a bigger d*ck" contest. You sound angry. Link to comment
HuskerNationNick Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Why are you nitpicking everything I am saying? Do you get a thrill out of trying to prove people wrong? I also said shootings will happen anywhere, no matter what type of security you have. Do you take that into consideration of your arguments No, your just trying to find something to debate about and instead of having a decent conversation, you make it into a "your wrong and I have a bigger d*ck" contest. You sound angry. I am not angry, I am annoyed that you contradict everything I say. You find one little thing I say, turn it into a debate and forget everything else that was said so you can get your rocks off to it. I am done with this thread. It was an interesting thread. Link to comment
beanman Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 What I want to see is Carlfense arguing with his woman. We don't really argue . . . 2 minor fights in 5 years . . . How can you not argue? Based on what I see on this board I picture you and her getting into a fist-fight at the grocery store over what brand of vermicelli to buy and why yours is superior. Link to comment
carlfense Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 How can you not argue? Based on what I see on this board I picture you and her getting into a fist-fight at the grocery store over what brand of vermicelli to buy and why yours is superior. You just have to find someone with equally good taste in vermicelli. (It's Barilla.) Also . . . this is the internet. We'd all get along just fine over beers. Edit: Also . . . if we did argue she'd probably win most of them because by most objective measures she is smarter than I am. But at least I can kill spiders all by myself, right? 1 Link to comment
HuskerNationNick Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 How can you not argue? Based on what I see on this board I picture you and her getting into a fist-fight at the grocery store over what brand of vermicelli to buy and why yours is superior. You just have to find someone with equally good taste in vermicelli. (It's Barilla.) Also . . . this is the internet. We'd all get along just fine over beers. Thats true, unless your a Bo hater lol. Link to comment
beanman Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 How can you not argue? Based on what I see on this board I picture you and her getting into a fist-fight at the grocery store over what brand of vermicelli to buy and why yours is superior. You just have to find someone with equally good taste in vermicelli. (It's Barilla.) Also . . . this is the internet. We'd all get along just fine over beers. Thats true, unless your a Bo hater lol. I don't hate Bo. I just think he's a bit of a douche. Does that mean we can still be friends while drinking? Link to comment
carlfense Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I am not angry, I am annoyed that you contradict everything I say. Many of the things that you are saying are contradicted by reality. Link to comment
carlfense Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Thats true, unless your a Bo hater lol. I don't hate Bo at all. That said, if it comes down to choosing what's best for the Nebraska program or choosing to support Bo . . . I know which way my loyalties lie. Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 You can't look at other nations and say that there would be similar effects for us. America is a different beast with a different culture. Also,regardless of whether or not there is an armed personnel, military or otherwise, people are still going to commit these acts of violence, because in the end they are more than likely to kill themselves anyways. The only thing that could possibly change is the amount of loss, which is something to consider. The argument about violent media is based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence, which is real crummy evidence that you only hear on talk shows. There are more people who don't shoot up schools, etc that watch violent media than there are people that do. So the problem must be traced somewhere else where watching violent media could amplify the problem. I present to you family life and mental health problems in the US. How many of these shooters had a mental health or came from a rough background? I don't think banning assault rifles will do anything major, again just lessen the loss. If implemented with other measures, such as armed guards, better mental health care, etc, it could be effective. But we won't know unless we do something. No action can't be the answer. 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 You can't look at other nations and say that there would be similar effects for us. America is a different beast with a different culture. Also,regardless of whether or not there is an armed personnel, military or otherwise, people are still going to commit these acts of violence, because in the end they are more than likely to kill themselves anyways. The only thing that could possibly change is the amount of loss, which is something to consider. The argument about violent media is based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence, which is real crummy evidence that you only hear on talk shows. There are more people who don't shoot up schools, etc that watch violent media than there are people that do. So the problem must be traced somewhere else where watching violent media could amplify the problem. I present to you family life and mental health problems in the US. How many of these shooters had a mental health or came from a rough background? I don't think banning assault rifles will do anything major, again just lessen the loss. If implemented with other measures, such as armed guards, better mental health care, etc, it could be effective. But we won't know unless we do something. No action can't be the answer. Great post. Link to comment
Recommended Posts