LogFAQs > #925786267

foolm0r0n posted...

This part can easily be switched out to another gun-reduction strategy that works better. Seems like the market works quite well in these cases though.

but why? why do you want to reduce the number of guns? that's the part that no one can ever really explain.

the only thing this accomplishes is weakening the country that you currently enjoy the benefits of living in. I literally do not get it. I really don't. it is seriously virus tier behavior, like, your only role is to help weaken the organism that you live inside of, without realizing the consequences it will have against your own life. or maybe you are doing it intentionally and this entire argument is in bad faith. I don't know.

foolm0r0n posted...

The military parts of my plan massively strengthen our economy and defense systems and thus our national security as a whole. It's the deadliest fallacy that spreading ourselves thin across 150 countries somehow improves our strength.

I mean if you want to talk about reducing our global presence, yeah, I think this is a great idea. we need to stop wasting resources policing the rest of the world. the US has already built way too much pointless shit all over the world in places where it doesn't need to be, and they've been up to some serious nonsense for like 15+ years accomplishing approximately nothing at great cost (money, LIVES, etc.)

foolm0r0n posted...

That said if you disagree with the entire premise of the topic then there's no point discussing. There's plenty of ways to easily convince people of that.

just because you can easily convince people of something doesn't mean it's true. it just means you're good at rhetoric. I think you have seriously gone down a path, way too far, where you are good at convincing people of things -- so good that you can do so even when you're wrong. the problem is that this has led you to believe you're right even when you're not.

it's funny that you mention the "premise" of this topic because it's not to solve the gun violence issue.

the purpose of this topic is that you want to reduce the number of guns owned by the united states military. this is a subject you've discussed in the past, I specifically remember you making another topic about the same thing.

see, because we're on board 8, you chose to appeal to the board 8 sensibilities -- you framed your idea in a way that appeals to board 8. we can solve the gun violence problem by reducing the amount of guns owned by the US military.

problem is, this explanation makes no sense to me, because it's not actually something that logically connects. so when I called you out, what did you do? you changed the argument. now it's an economic argument, now it's about the global politics of the united states. these are subjects where you feel it's better to engage me -- you think that if you frame the discussion as a way to make the US more economically viable, I will agree to your plan of reducing the amount of guns owned by the US Military.

see, it comes across like you don't actually care about the gun violence issue, or the economics issue, you're just saying whatever you need to say to try and get the listener to agree with your proposed plan. the issue is that false rhetoric and reality can't coexist.

if you promise people that you'll solve the gun violence issue by reducing the guns owned by the US military, and then you reduce the amount of guns owned by the US military, and the amount of gun violence doesn't change -- what then? that's the issue with this topic.
---

Reality seems very harsh
https://imgur.com/3a03avz