On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 23:40, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > PLEASE, show some prove for your statements. > > I'll have to get back to you as I don't have all of my info bookmarked > and/or easily available. It's hard to provide an URL for a paragraph > in a book. You can take that statement however you like, but I'd > prefer you took it as I meant it. Brant, We of the facts and figures would like for it to be that way, but they can't win by doing that, since the evidence is not on their side. Therefore they will not take it like you mean it, and will run away from the core arguments. > > Some URL like that maybe? Not some racists book... > > Are you kidding me? How can you apply logic so well when it comes to > computers but totally fail when it comes to the real world? Are you > implying that every single individual that has been associated with > Lott's publisher is by that mere association a racist? Brant, he doesn't know who John R Lott is. In fact none of them on the wrong side of the issue do, and none of them are studied on the subject. (which is why they are on the wrong side of the issue to begin with.) He has John R. Lott confused with Senator Trent Lott in the Congress of the United States, who recently had a run-in with the black caucus over a poorly worded statement at a party, and was subsequently dubbed a racist. John R. Lott has never had any such similar circumstances even remotely associated with him. You see, there's not a clue to be found here. If there was, and if they were educated enough, they would realize that Lott was an example set as a trap for them; as was Tammy Bruce. Both traps worked out excellently, btw. In the case of John R. Lott, he is a former leftist that set out to prove that firearms were a danger to the populace. His intent was to find facts, figures and statistics that would finally, once and for all, put to the sword the idea of the right to own firearms and the relevance of that to survival and self defense. Instead, he found by examination of the actual data that the opposite was true: the Bill of Rights was vindicated by the data, as were the guns rights advocates. What the guns rights advocates had been saying all along was right. And that is what he discovered. Being an honest man, he changed his stance and printed the truth. So their ideology is damned by one of their own. Now he stands accused by the ignorant as a racist, by those who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about or even *who* they are supposed to be talking about. I fully expected them to fall into the trap of accusing John of being a right winger; the racist stuff was merely an extra bonus. > > The reason why these dogs get outlawed here is exactly the same as why guns > > are restricted: _look_ at them. I don't want those fucked up people who own a > > Pit Bull have one. As I don't want those brain-dead alcoholic gun-crazy > > redneck to have one. > > You totally missed the point. I apologize for not making it clearer. No need to apologize, the point is being danced around because your demonstration of the failure of their reasoning is close at hand. To me it looks to be merely a delaying tactic on their part. > > The point was--you don't mess with a Pit Bull because it's obvious the > dog is quite capable of hurting you if you try to hurt it. It is the > same with humans. You don't want to mess with a human that is > obviously capable of hurting you if you try to hurt them. My > description of criminals being cowards, but not stupid, reflects that > fact. > > When given the choice between attacking a little old lady with a > thousand dollars in her purse and a very large football player with a > thousand dollars in his pocket which do you think would be the more > likely target? > > What if you now gave that old lady a gun, taught her how to use it, > and informed that same attacker that she had a gun and knew how to use > it? Now which one would be the more likely target? I think, and I'm > sure you'll disagree, but I think that this is coming very close to a > lose-lose situation for our attacker. > > Let's sweeten the deal. The old lady has $10,000. Still not looking > good for the attacker. Excellent essay. > Only a complete idiot wouldn't get what I'm saying at this point. Very good point. > > Watch too much TV lately? > > Wow. What did that have to do with anything I said? > > b. > > Was a delaying tactic. Throwing you off the trail. > > -- > Brant Fitzsimmons > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. > Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being > self-evident." > -Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) Kudos to you. :) --LX -- ������������������������������������������������ Kernel 2.4.21-0.13mdk Linux Mandrake 9.1 Enlightenment-0.16.5-12mdk Evolution 1.2.4-1.1mdk Linux User #268899 http://counter.li.org/ ������������������������������������������������
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
