Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

He makes a similar sort of argument in another debate I am in. Here's the highlight of that debate:

Jace: Language is subjective, so it is a relatively simple matter for someone to regard conception as abortion..

Bohemian: And if I regard my couch as a rocket-ship then that makes me an astronaut.

So that would be a 'No' then. Gotcha.

*

Are you going to address your intentional misquotations or are you going to keep playing this game.

The Red Herring is where ?

The red herring is in every post in this thread, where you avoid discussing that sleazy slimy business you did with your quotations. Manipulating a quotation to make it appear as if someone said something that they did not, to suit your own needs, demonstrates a lack of integrity. That's what I commented on. That's why I am in this thread/debate. That's what you are avoiding talking about. The longer you play this game the more spineless you make yourself out to be.

This is a red herring. My post was in regard to your dishonest quotation manipulation.

-Cue tantrum

You might notice the name and picture of the person you are replying to is different, as I have said no such words.

Though I find your changing of Cartman's quote to be pretty pathetic. You even changed it back, so there is no possibility that you didn't notice it. Clearly you did, and just didn't care. It would benefit you to show more integrity in future posts.

I don't care what people think about Brexit, state your opinion as you may, but if you are going to quote someone changing their words to suit yourself is pretty slimy and dishonest.

More accurate to say that Gun control is like enforcing legislation so provenly crazy people don't get to drive cars. And also that people with histories of drunk driving don't don't drive.

I don't have a problem with background checks, or prohibiting people with felonies or potentially violent mental disorders to own firearms. However bans on high-capacity magazines, pistol grips, barrel shrouds and other "military style" features I do oppose.

Most shootings involve two people, the shooter and the victim. Despite the technical capability to cause more carnage, there are other factors that influence the number of victims. Consider that a S&W;9mm fires about 10 rounds a minute, and is the most common firearm used by Chicago-area criminals, one study found. The Sako M95 fires 600+ rounds a minute, there are about 300,000 of them in circulation and not one has been used to commit a crime. So one despite having a greater technical ability to create carnage, in reality, is involved in less of it. Our thinking on the matter has to be a bit deeper than "Well, that weapon is more dangerous".