Guns don't kill people...

[Robches]

Sam Slater wrote:


>
> At least that's what gun nuts and the NRA tell us who market
> guns for young children. Hmmm....this reminds me of
> something....but I digress. Here's a very good article
> debunking this type of thinking:
>


You were hardly presenting it as a partisan piece which expresses the views of one side of an argument though were you? If this "very good article" really "debunks" the opposition in your opinion, then I get the impression you think it represents the truth, or else why draw attention to it?

[Sam Slater]

Don't put words into my mouth, Robches. I never said it was 'truth' and saying it was a 'very good article' is just giving you my opinion on it. If you don't like the article, fair enough, say so, but don't act like I've held it up as gospel.

I know what you think about guns. I'm not surprised you don't like it.

[max_tranmere]

The US rapper Ice-T on guns, he says some quite interesting things here. Have a watch, this interview from Channel 4 news is only a minute and a half long:

[Robches]

Sam Slater wrote:

> Don't put words into my mouth, Robches. I never said it was
> 'truth' and saying it was a 'very good article' is just giving
> you my opinion on it. If you don't like the article, fair
> enough, say so, but don't act like I've held it up as gospel.
>
> I know what you think about guns. I'm not surprised you don't
> like it.
>

Come off it. If you recommend an article, it is fair to suppose you think it is true. Would you call something which struck you as nonsense a "very good article"? Of course not. You protest too much.

[Sam Slater]

Nah.....you made wrongful assertion that I presented the article as 'objective truth' and now rather than backtrack and admit you were wrong we're now having this little dance so you can try and find a way out without looking foolish

Fact is, people recommend things all the time without thinking that thing is some 'objective truth'. As I've said, I posted the article because I think it had some good points. That's it. We can argue those points if you want, but don't accuse me of presenting it as 'objective truth' when I did not.

Do I think the points have some truth in them? Yes. But you've accused me of presenting those points as objectively true.....or in layman's terms 'facts'. That's false and you know it so quit the bullshit.

[dave756]

"Do I think the points have some truth in them? Yes."

Could you give some examples of those points that you believe "have some truth in them"?

[Robches]

Sam:

So, you present an article as having truth in it, but have some sort of objection to my pointing that out? Are these "facts" true or not? Do you know? Now I'm confused. The fact is that that article coincides with your beliefs, and hence you regard the points it makes as "true". Or am I wrong?

[Sam Slater]

[quote]So, you present an article as having truth in it, but have some sort of objection to my pointing that out?[/quote]

Is there something wrong with you, Robches, whereby you cannot follow a simple conversation?

I didn't present anything as true. If you can find where I present it as true then you can simply show me and you win the argument. It's a slam dunk for Robches. If you can't you're sat where you are now, looking foolish.

So, go on - show me.

[Sam Slater]

Yes. I believe it is true that, as the article's first main point talks about, there's an inconsistency in how the US government will ban lawn darts after a child's death and thousands of hospital admissions, but do not want to ban guns that kill and maim far more. One of the problems sited with lawn darts too was that they were marketed at children, despite being deemed dangerous. Guns too are marketed as towards children in the US.

So that's one good point (the inconsistency) that I think has some truth to it.

[dave756]

Well that's good to know you believe in the views expressed in the article. You've opened up, thank you.