egafd.com

Robches, you're mad. The only one tying himself in knots is you.

I'll ask you again: Do you know the difference between believing something as true and presenting something as a fact to others?

Yes or no.

If you do not know the difference, I'll be happy to enlighten you.

If you do know the difference then you'll know you're wrong and wasting your time trying to wriggle out of the hole you're digging for yourself.

Sam Slater wrote:

> Robches, you're mad. The only one tying himself in knots is
> you.
>
> I'll ask you again: Do you know the difference between
> believing something as true and presenting something as a fact
> to others?
>
> Yes or no.
>
> If you do not know the difference, I'll be happy to enlighten
> you.
>
> If you do know the difference then you'll know you're wrong and
> wasting your time trying to wriggle out of the hole you're
> digging for yourself.
>

Sam:

The "hole" is in your own mind. This is not a philosophy viva, it is a discussion forum. It is my opinion that you believe that article is true, and therefore link to it. In short, you agree with it, not because you think it is false, but because you think it is true.

As for who is wasting time, well, have a think about that one.

This isn't about philosophy. I'm not trying to trick you or muddle things. Again:

Do you know the difference between believing something has some truth in it and presenting something as a fact to others? Yes or no?

It's no mystery what I believe. I've told you openly. What I believe isn't our problem here. What's our problem is you accusing me of something I didn't do. No deep philosophical debate, no tricky rhetoric or impenetrable wording, just a simple difference between what I did and didn't do.

Sam:

I have met a few self important pedants in my time, but I doff my hat to you, you take the prize. You seem to think a comment on a blog is a supreme affront to your dignity. Please feel free to be offended. The only point I was ever trying to make was that you agreed with that article because it corresponded with your pre-existing views, and hence it was, in your opinion, true.

Please feel free to waste your time with as many more irrelevant comments as you like, I shall not feel affronted.

Pedantry is pulling people up on little mistakes and errors that are irrelevant to the point at hand. Given you accused me of 'presenting an objective truth' and me denying that, it is precisely on point and thus not pedantic in the slightest.

Just listen to yourself. You accuse me of doing something I didn't do. If I point it out and tell you I didn't do it, I'm then considered a pedant. Well, isn't that cushty for you, Robches? You've got me either way with that tactic. I'm either a liar or a pedant. Nice one.

Stop acting like a child. You're only annoyed because you like guns and the article was anti-guns. That is the top and bottom of this and in your annoyance accused me of something I didn't do. Now you can't admit it because the argument has gone on far too long and you'll look silly. You should have just admitted to your mistake 6 or 7 posts ago and nobody would have thought any less of you. Everyone makes mistakes.

I think my mistake was to try and have a friendly discussion with you. I will try not to make that one again.

Friendly discussion? What's friendly about falsely accusing people of something they didn't do and then call them a pedant when they show they're innocent?

You either have the cheek of the devil or you're winding me up.

Sam Slater wrote:

> Friendly discussion? What's friendly about falsely accusing
> people of something they didn't do and then call them a pedant
> when they show they're innocent?
>
> You either have the cheek of the devil or you're winding me up.
>


I wish I was winding you up, because it seems extremely easy. As for "falsely accusing" you of something of which you are "innocent", I suggest you are living in some sort of dream world. This is a discussion forum, not the Old Bailey.

dave756 wrote:

> It seems the right to bare arms is seen by so many Americans as
> being firmly a right given via the Constitution which reads:
>
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
> free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
> shall not be infringed."
>
> There will therefore be many views on this, hard to say which
> are right and which are wrong as gun laws are a for or against
> political argument in the US, but due to the Constitution it
> follows that looking at and comparing 'lawn darts' 'cars' etc
> to guns is difficult and that is down to the gun
> politics/Constitution of the US. What is great about the
> Constitution is in this case it is held up and a politician who
> disagrees with it is told well and truly to go fuck themselves
> and no one can do a dam thing about it.


Dave:

I agree with you, to compare a stupid game with a constitutionally protected right is ridiculous. Of course, the US Constitution is not written in stone, and can be amended, but the people who would ban guns in the USA know that they don't have the votes to do it, so they do not try. They prefer to achieve their ends though more underhand means.

[quote]I wish I was winding you up, because it seems extremely easy.[/quote]

On the contrary. I wound you up just by posting an anti-gun article.

[quote]As for "falsely accusing" you of something of which you are "innocent", I suggest you are living in some sort of dream world.[/quote]

So you're denying you accused me of 'presenting something as objective truth'? It's you living in the dream world, Robches and I can show it. However, if I did I'd just be being pedantic !laugh!

[quote]This is a discussion forum, not the Old Bailey.[/quote]

In in everyday discussions in life do you regularly accuse people of things they didn't do and then call them 'pedantic' just for defending themselves?

You were wrong. The 'friendly' thing to do would have been to hold your hands up and admit your mistake and we could all move on, instead of this charade you're keeping up.