Argument

[17:02:15] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: i just cut my thumb
[17:02:18] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: down to the bone
[17:02:25] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: and started laughing
[17:02:29] heidi: lovely.
[17:02:35] heidi: how'd you do that then?
[17:02:45] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: i was practicing drawing my knife, and it's spring assisted
[17:02:49] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: so it flipped out of my hand
[17:02:52] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: rofl
[17:02:54] Twilight Sparkle is best princess: rofl
[17:02:56] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: and it's extremely sharp
[17:03:06] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I could shave with it
[17:03:11] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: sometimes i trim my eye brows with it hue
[17:03:20] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: but yeah
[17:03:48] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: that was like 10 minutes ago, i put a bandaid on it because it's the back of my thumb
[17:03:54] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: i hope it doesnt stop me from playing guitar
[17:03:56] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: that'd be inconvenient
[17:04:24] heidi: >drawing your knife
[17:04:32] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: the song we're working on is simple enough that i could do all of the strumming with my index finger i think, but other songs i'm trying to learn require my thumb
[17:04:33] heidi: live someplace violent?
[17:04:38] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: nope
[17:04:52] heidi: why would you need a spring-assisted knife then
[17:05:07] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: no one needs a spring assisted knife
[17:05:09] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: but it doesn't hurt
[17:05:14] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: unless you cut your own thumb open
[17:05:16] heidi: > [Monday, 18 March 2013 17:05:09 Buddhist !LogicOCed.] but it doesn't hurt
[17:05:16] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: like me
[17:05:18] heidi: > [Monday, 18 March 2013 17:05:09 Buddhist !LogicOCed.] but it doesn't hurt
[17:05:19] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: hahahah
[17:05:20] heidi: > [Monday, 18 March 2013 17:05:09 Buddhist !LogicOCed.] but it doesn't hurt
[17:05:33] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: that's the first time it's happened thoug h
[17:05:36] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: i've had the knife for like 3 years
[17:05:43] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: and i carry it on me 100% of the time
[17:05:48] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: the only time i don't have it is when i shower
[17:05:49] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: lol
[17:05:59] heidi: where do you live where that isnt illegal?
[17:06:01] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: and my method for drawing it is unique, which is what allowed the mishap to happen
[17:06:07] heidi: but more to the point
[17:06:15] heidi: why do you feel you have to carry a weapon?
[17:06:31] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: sometimes I need to open containers
[17:06:35] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: hue
[17:06:36] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: or cut things
[17:06:48] heidi: 100% of the time?
[17:06:51] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: well
[17:06:53] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: \every day yeah
[17:06:58] heidi: i have knives at home
[17:07:03] heidi: which is where i use them
[17:07:07] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: this morning i went downstairs for breakfast, needed to cut open a bag
[17:07:09] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: had a knife on me
[17:07:22] heidi: >not having a knife in the kitchen anyway
[17:07:28] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: i wasn't in the kitchen
[17:07:37] heidi: but its sooooooo faaaaaaaar
[17:07:42] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: ...
[17:07:48] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: and to your point about self defense
[17:07:59] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: just because I don't expect to need to defend myself doesn't mean it isn't a possibility
[17:08:07] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: i'd carry my gun around too if I could
[17:08:23] heidi: oh yeehaa, we got a merifag
[17:08:28] heidi: typical one too
[17:08:35] heidi: >carrying guns
[17:08:39] heidi: seriously
[17:08:43] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: loling
[17:08:46] heidi: id be afraid to walk around if everyone had guns
[17:08:50] Twilight Sparkle is best princess: why wouldnt you carry a gun :o
[17:08:57] Twilight Sparkle is best princess: rofl
[17:09:00] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: guns aren't dangerous
[17:09:12] Twilight Sparkle is best princess: huehuehue
[17:09:17] heidi: yeah yeah yeah, guns dont kill, people do
[17:09:22] heidi: im well aware of the arguments
[17:09:38] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: well what you said implies you aren't
[17:09:41] Twilight Sparkle is best princess: i think you aren´t, because if you were, you wouldnt argue about it
[17:09:46] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: why would you be afraid of walking around if everyone carried a gun? that makes no sense
[17:10:14] heidi: > [Monday, 18 March 2013 17:09:41 Twilight Sparkle is best princess] i think you aren´t, because if you were, you wouldnt argue about it

are you seriously implying that this argument is pointless because you're automatically right? i hope you arent.
[17:10:36] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: the argument is pointless if you're already correct
[17:10:43] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: there's nothing invalid about that
[17:10:47] heidi: but you arent.
[17:10:51] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: assuming all you have to gain is knowledge
[17:10:51] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: well
[17:10:53] heidi: not in my view
[17:10:55] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: logic is on our side
[17:11:05] heidi: if youd let me argue my point instead of shooting me down
[17:11:19] Twilight Sparkle is best princess: lold
[17:11:24] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: go for it, I never meant to shoot you down
[17:11:29] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: also lol pun
[17:11:33] heidi: hue
[17:11:40] heidi: like i was saying
[17:11:45] heidi: id be afraid to go out
[17:11:49] heidi: BECAUSE
[17:12:06] heidi: say for the sake of argument, someone wants to harm me
[17:12:11] heidi: for whatever reason
[17:12:25] Twilight Sparkle is best princess: if i want to harm you, i could do that with a knife as much as i could do it with a gun
[17:12:33] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: he clearly is against knife carrying too
[17:12:38] Twilight Sparkle is best princess: oh
[17:12:39] heidi: ok seriously, you gotta let me finish too
[17:12:39] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: better argument would be a metal pipe or wrench
[17:12:40] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: or hands
[17:12:41] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: or pencil
[17:12:44] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: but yeah go on
[17:13:01] heidi: like i was saying before being so rudely interrupted
[17:13:10] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: lol
[17:13:13] Twilight Sparkle is best princess: hahah
[17:13:19] heidi: without guns, i have a higher chance of survival
[17:13:22] heidi: thats undeniable
[17:13:26] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: wat
[17:13:29] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: that makes no sense
[17:13:35] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: say 6 guys attack me with metal pipes
[17:13:37] heidi: its much harder to kill someonewith a knife than with a gun
[17:13:45] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: that's completely false
[17:13:57] heidi: you stand i higher chance of surviving 6 guys with pipe than 6 guys with guns
[17:14:03] heidi: true/false?
[17:14:04] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: no you do not
[17:14:07] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: that's completely absurd
[17:14:15] heidi: right
[17:14:19] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: me with a gun vs. 6 guys with guns is WAY better than me with a pipe vs. 6 guys with pipes
[17:14:22] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: obviously
[17:14:33] heidi: seriously?
[17:14:36] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: there's zero chance of me beating 6 guys with pipes if all i have is a pipe
[17:14:40] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: but there's a reasonable chance i will with a gun
[17:14:50] heidi: i think you watch too many action movies
[17:14:55] Twilight Sparkle is best princess: rofl
[17:14:56] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: wat
[17:15:02] heidi: you can drop one
[17:15:05] heidi: maybe two
[17:15:10] heidi: but youll still get killed
[17:15:12] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: what are you basing this on?
[17:15:16] heidi: common sense!
[17:15:19] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: clearly not
[17:15:20] heidi: numbers
[17:15:23] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I actually shoot guns
[17:15:42] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: it's possible for people to miss, if they miss you for one second, you win
[17:15:45] heidi: which gives you a vast wealth in real gun combat, im sure
[17:15:51] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: if 6 guys with pipes make a mistake for one second, nothing happens
[17:15:55] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: you hit maybe one
[17:15:56] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: in the head
[17:15:59] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: and still have 5
[17:16:07] heidi: and how does that argument not apply to guns
[17:16:20] Twilight Sparkle is best princess: are you serious
[17:16:21] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: because if they miss for 1 second then you kill all 6
[17:16:27] heidi: hahahaha
[17:16:41] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: the more effective the weapon, the more likely one person can win against many
[17:16:44] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: that's just how it works
[17:17:03] heidi: and the more likely it is for you to be on the opposite side
[17:17:13] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: i'd be more confident in me with a sword vs. 4 guys with swords than me unarmed vs. 3 guys unarmed, for example
[17:17:32] heidi: thats silly.
[17:17:34] heidi: thats really fucking stupid
[17:17:49] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I also practice medieval martial arts, btw, and that hypothetical assumes everyone has at least some skill
[17:17:53] heidi: so you'd win in a tank vs. 20 tanks?
[17:18:04] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: possibly
[17:18:08] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: depends on the technology
[17:18:16] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: the f15 has over 100 confirmed kills and zero losses
[17:18:24] heidi: that a jet?
[17:18:28] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: yeah
[17:18:30] heidi: ok
[17:18:31] heidi: now
[17:18:35] heidi: youre in a f15
[17:18:44] heidi: youre in a dogfight with 10 f15's
[17:18:56] heidi: how long will it take you to lose
[17:19:02] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: that's irrelevant
[17:19:07] heidi: no it isnt
[17:19:11] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: the point is chances of winning, not the time it takes to lose
[17:19:12] heidi: > [Monday, 18 March 2013 17:16:41 Buddhist !LogicOCed.] the more effective the weapon, the more likely one person can win against many
[17:19:16] heidi: ok
[17:19:20] heidi: let me rephrase
[17:19:27] heidi: do you really expect to win?
[17:19:33] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: of course not
[17:19:40] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I don't expect to win unarmed vs. 3 unarmed guys
[17:19:44] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: or with a gun vs. 6 gunmen
[17:19:52] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: the odds are against you in every situation
[17:19:56] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: but the point is that your odds go up
[17:19:57] heidi: so
[17:20:00] heidi: lets stick to 1v1.
[17:20:04] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: when you have a better weapon
[17:20:24] heidi: right
[17:20:40] heidi: assuming an equal level of skill between the two people
[17:20:59] heidi: can you not see that it is easier to kill someone with a gun than with melee?
[17:21:22] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: completely depends on the situation
[17:22:03] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: it's far preferably, in melee range, to fight a gun wielder than a knife wielder
[17:22:18] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: that's not even really debateable
[17:22:21] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: the question is
[17:22:28] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: would a guy who wants to kill you be in melee range
[17:22:29] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: or not
[17:22:33] heidi: > [Monday, 18 March 2013 17:22:18 Buddhist !LogicOCed.] that's not even really debateable

if you have a certain skill in melee
[17:22:53] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: even if you don't, the gun must be aimed at you to shoot you, which makes it easier to grab and push away
[17:23:01] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: whereas a knife can come in and out rapidly at any angle
[17:23:03] Twilight Sparkle is best princess: [17:21:19] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: completely depends on the situation

<<<  so you agree?
[17:23:09] heidi: lets say a city pavement, since this argument started this way
[17:23:13] heidi: im walking along
[17:23:20] heidi: some guy decides to kill me
[17:23:31] heidi: id feel safer if he had a knife or was unarmed
[17:23:37] heidi: than if he had a gun.
[17:23:42] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: if you had a warning, then yeah
[17:23:44] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: you could just run away
[17:23:44] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: gg
[17:23:51] heidi: my point.
[17:23:55] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: the problem is, why would a guy who wants to KILL you give you a warning
[17:24:03] heidi: not everyone is solid snake
[17:24:08] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: lol
[17:24:10] heidi: or a professional hitman
[17:24:13] heidi: please
[17:24:19] heidi: dont twist the parameters to suit you
[17:24:26] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: that's nonsense
[17:24:29] heidi: im speaking about your average mugger
[17:24:34] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: muggers don't want to kill you
[17:24:40] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: they want your money
[17:24:47] heidi: fine then
[17:24:54] heidi: let me rephrase
[17:25:03] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: this all raises an important question: why does some random dude on the street want to end your life?
[17:25:05] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: seems unlikely
[17:25:17] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: if someone has some reason to want you dead, then yeah a gun will be best
[17:25:17] heidi: why would you need to carry a weapon?
[17:25:21] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: they can shoot you from a distance
[17:25:23] heidi: seems unlikely youd need it
[17:25:31] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: it is unlikely, but it's a possibility
[17:25:40] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: it's more likely I'll need a weapon than someone will want to kill me
[17:25:41] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: rofl
[17:25:42] heidi: and its a possibility id come under attack
[17:26:03] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: if anyone in my general vicinity is trying to attack or kill anyone else in my general vicinity, then me having a weapon is beneficial
[17:26:25] heidi: but if they have the same weapons and the same skills as you do, the benefit is moot
[17:26:37] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: no it isn't
[17:27:13] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: if someone 20 feet from me pulls a knife on a guy near him, and hypothetically I have the presence of mind to realize it's life or death, I can pull my gun from 20 feet away and shoot him before he can stab the third person
[17:27:17] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: er
[17:27:19] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: pulls a gun
[17:27:20] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: or knife
[17:27:21] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: or whatever
[17:27:33] heidi: thats an awful lot of hypotheticals
[17:27:38] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: so?
[17:27:45] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: you're not giving any more realistic scenarios
[17:27:48] heidi: i can suggest an equally implausible scenario to support my point of view
[17:27:58] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: how is that implausible?
[17:28:09] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: sometimes people attack other people for whatever reason
[17:28:16] heidi: exactly
[17:28:25] heidi: id prefer to be attacked with lower technology.
[17:28:31] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: why would YOU be attacked?
[17:28:41] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I meant that other people might get into an argument or some shit and it gets violent
[17:28:43] heidi: why would YOU carry a weapon?
[17:28:45] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: i don't expect that to happen to ME
[17:28:52] heidi: noone ever does
[17:28:55] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: well
[17:28:57] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: then i'll be prepared
[17:28:59] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: if i'm carrying a weapon
[17:29:08] heidi: but so is everyone else!
[17:29:13] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: no
[17:29:14] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: they aren't
[17:29:19] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: they can, but most don't
[17:29:28] heidi: and why not?
[17:29:41] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: because of whatever reason they have to not do it, laziness, poorness, whatever
[17:29:45] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: inconvenience
[17:30:16] heidi: i still maintain that its riskier to live in a world where guns are more readily available
[17:30:42] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: statistically, that is inaccurate
[17:30:45] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: and logically that makes no sense
[17:31:05] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: the less available something is legally, the more likely only criminals will have them
[17:31:28] heidi: criminals will commit crimes with whatever they have
[17:31:44] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: why do you think both the US and switzerland have some of the highest gun ownership in the world, and at the same time the lowest murder rate in the world?
[17:32:01] heidi: >murder
[17:32:07] heidi: nice cherrypicking
[17:32:10] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: ...
[17:32:19] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: what
[17:32:22] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: that's what we're talking about
[17:32:27] heidi: no.
[17:32:28] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: if you want to talk crime in general, the US does even better
[17:32:38] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: compare the US and UK in crime rates
[17:32:39] heidi: im not talking about the US at all mate
[17:32:40] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: it's hilarious
[17:32:52] heidi: why are you turning this into country rivalry
[17:32:55] heidi: i dont give a shit
[17:33:03] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: wut
[17:33:05] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I'm not
[17:33:19] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: [12:30:18 PM] heidi: i still maintain that its riskier to live in a world where guns are more readily available
[12:30:44 PM] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: statistically, that is inaccurate
[17:33:24] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: i brought statistics to the table
[17:33:30] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: you also opened the conversation with "hur dur mericans"
[17:33:32] heidi: fine then
[17:33:39] heidi: *citation needed*
[17:33:50] heidi: gonna need some sauce on those stats then
[17:33:56] heidi: lets examine them.
[17:35:18] heidi: while you look, ill continue. like i was saying, criminals will commit crimes with whatever they have. but in a country where guns are more readily available, the average citizen has a higher potential to cause harm than in a country where firearms are restricted.
[17:35:25] heidi: thats common sense.
[17:36:01] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: lost power for a second
[17:36:11] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: yeah
[17:36:12] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: that's true
[17:36:28] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: it's also true that when more people have means to defend themselves, more defenses will occur
[17:36:41] heidi: > [Monday, 18 March 2013 17:33:50 heidi] gonna need some sauce on those stats then
[17:36:56] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=defensive+gun+use&oq=defensive+gun+use&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.583.3055.0.3429.21.11.0.6.6.1.602.2268.4j3j1j1j0j2.11.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.6.psy-ab.soMxvOmXNvo&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43828540,d.dmQ&fp=b1fee2a396897a33&biw=1920&bih=933
[17:37:06] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: i'm not going to examine each piece of evidence with you individually
[17:37:14] heidi: why not?
[17:37:17] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/222780_509587829084907_608805342_n.png
[17:37:18] heidi: sounds like fun.
[17:37:19] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: waste of my time
[17:37:28] Dani (dunno): because that's a pain in the ass
[17:37:45] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: it's funny though because this conversation has been mostly moot
[17:37:46] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: like
[17:37:48] Dani (dunno): it's something that looks completely different depending on what side you're looking at it from
[17:37:58] Dani (dunno): it's a silly argument
[17:37:58] heidi: > [Monday, 18 March 2013 17:37:48 Dani (dunno)] it's something that looks completely different depending on what side you're looking at it from
[17:38:00] heidi: this
[17:38:11] heidi: were looking at it from fundamentally different sides.
[17:38:16] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: no we aren't
[17:38:22] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: you're just giving logically invalid reasoning
[17:38:38] heidi: how is it anything of what i said logically invalid?
[17:38:46] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: we're both looking at it from the perspective of "what effects will increased gun availability have"
[17:38:50] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: uh
[17:38:58] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: almost everything you've said has been invalid
[17:39:04] heidi: pick a single one
[17:39:09] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: you've said you have a higher chance of survival with lower tech weapons
[17:39:09] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: etc
[17:39:09] heidi: we'll debate only that one.
[17:39:14] heidi: ok
[17:39:24] heidi: let me expound upon that.
[17:39:26] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: no thanks
[17:39:39] heidi: well this is a fine argument then isnt it
[17:39:49] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I don't want to partake in the argument anymore
[17:39:53] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: too much wasted time
[17:40:01] Dani (dunno): honestly i'd personally say that regardless of gun availablity, the people who are planning crimes are going to commit crimes with them regardless
[17:40:03] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: it's also a completely moot argument
[17:40:10] heidi: >im right
>youre logically invalid
no im not, ill explain
>no thinks, wasted time
[17:40:14] Dani (dunno): guns are easy to get if you know the right people
[17:40:15] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: yes
[17:40:16] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: that is what happened
[17:40:24] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I am saying you're wrong and not giving you a chance to explain
[17:40:27] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: because I don't care what you have to say
[17:40:39] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: if the conversation mattered to me, then there'd be an issue with this
[17:40:44] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: but the conversation doesn't matter to me
[17:40:46] heidi: you are literally the worst kind of person.
[17:40:49] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: ...
[17:40:49] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: yeah
[17:40:50] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: totally
[17:41:01] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: like I've been trying to say
[17:41:04] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: the conversation is completely moot
[17:41:20] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: because the question of whether or not people should be *allowed* to carry weapons is completely different from whether or not it's "good" that they do
[17:41:26] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: or good that they can
[17:41:45] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: there's no logical argument you can make that says that I should not be allowed to carry a weapon
[17:41:50] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I am not going to use it to commit a crime
[17:42:23] reallyfatbaby: and to think, this all started because buddhist gored his thumb
[17:42:37] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: even if the majority of people who have weapons commit crimes with them (obviously hilariously wrong), there would still be no valid argument that I should be disarmed
[17:43:23] reallyfatbaby: that'd me more a case of dealing with the sanity of the population
[17:43:27] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: it's funny that heidi will come away from this thinking "omagerd mericans r so closed minded"
[17:43:35] reallyfatbaby: something in the water
[17:43:38] heidi: whoops
[17:43:42] heidi: had to restart
[17:43:46] heidi: where were we
[17:43:54] heidi: ah yes.
[17:43:55] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: when in reality I could have just opted to not have the conversation in the first place, and he'd never have said "you're the worst kind of person", but the same effect would have been had
[17:45:18] heidi: regardless of the content of your argument, the way in which you've conducted it shows that you are incredibly close-minded. while im willing to discuss something i feel strongly about, you obviously dont feel the same way unless its trying to convince me. otherwise you wouldnt have entered into the argument in the first place.
[17:45:27] heidi: you sound petty and ignorant
[17:45:28] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I'm not clsoed minded at all
[17:45:31] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: closed*
[17:45:34] heidi: > [Monday, 18 March 2013 17:41:45 Buddhist !LogicOCed.] there's no logical argument you can make that says that I should not be allowed to carry a weapon
[17:45:41] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: yes
[17:45:44] heidi: the very definition of closemindedness.
[17:45:51] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: ...
[17:46:04] heidi: if you dont let me make my argument, of course youre not going to get one
[17:46:08] heidi: but whatever
[17:46:12] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: there's no logical argument you can make that says 2+2=5 (assuming we use the same definition of those numbers, obviously)
[17:46:29] Dani (dunno): there's a difference in ideology here.
[17:46:37] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: ideology is irrelevant
[17:46:43] heidi: so you're saying that gun control policies have the same clear-cut views as maths?
[17:46:49] heidi: because if you are
[17:46:50] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: no
[17:46:54] Dani (dunno): it's relevant because it's causing the issue
[17:46:58] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I didn't say anything about gun control policies
[17:47:01] Dani (dunno): it's irrelevant to the actual topic
[17:47:06] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: not in that general of a sense
[17:47:24] heidi: so are you saying that weapon-carrying policies have the same clear-cut views as maths?
[17:48:01] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I'm saying that the argument of whether or not it's okay to disarm all people in a society indiscriminately is as clear-cut as math
[17:48:15] heidi: so why isnt policy the same the world over?
[17:48:26] heidi: why doesnt the UK allow people to carry guns?
[17:48:30] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: ...
[17:48:34] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: this is why the conversation is pointless
[17:48:37] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: you're very stupid
[17:48:48] heidi: actually, mensa member here, but do go on
[17:48:55] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: oh wow
[17:48:56] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: IQ
[17:48:58] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: counts for so much
[17:48:59] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: derp
[17:49:03] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: the policies of the UK or any country are far, far removed from logic
[17:49:07] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: which is obvious
[17:49:11] heidi: but its not
[17:49:14] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: ...
[17:49:20] heidi: you say words like 'obvious' without backing them up
[17:49:28] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: rofl
[17:49:31] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: seriously
[17:49:35] heidi: if it was obvious, their policies would match yours
[17:49:46] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: you are making the most amazing arguments
[17:49:49] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: that are so valid
[17:49:50] Dani (dunno): the issue is, we don't live in a perfect world. we live in a world where 2+2 adds up to 5 for some, 4 for others and even 3 for others.
[17:49:54] heidi: so are you.
[17:50:02] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: [12:49:05 PM] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: the policies of the UK or any country are far, far removed from logic
[12:49:09 PM] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: which is obvious
[17:50:06] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: [12:49:37 PM] heidi: if it was obvious, their policies would match yours
[17:50:17] heidi: i really cant see what points youre trying to make, and its clear you feel the same way
[17:50:24] heidi: its pretty clear weve run our course
[17:50:28] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: rofl
[17:50:37] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I'm making a really simple/obvious point
[17:50:41] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: and you're failing to grasp it somehow
[17:50:54] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: the fact that you don't already realize it proved that a conversation with you is pointless
[17:50:55] heidi: lets play along
[17:51:10] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: you're arguing that "if it's logical to do X, then all countries would do X, but they don't therefore X isn't logical"
[17:51:18] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: do I really need to explain how idiotic of an argument that is?
[17:51:18] heidi: try to explain it to me in retard language
[17:51:19] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: really?
[17:51:28] heidi: no, your original point.
[17:51:34] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: ?
[17:52:00] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I don't think I ever said my original point on disarmament is "obvious"
[17:52:12] heidi: > [Monday, 18 March 2013 17:49:03 Buddhist !LogicOCed.] the policies of the UK or any country are far, far removed from logic

> [Monday, 18 March 2013 17:49:07 Buddhist !LogicOCed.] which is obvious
[17:52:13] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: what I said is "obvious" is that the policies of countries are far, far removed from logic
[17:52:17] heidi: fine
[17:52:21] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: ...
[17:52:25] heidi: can you not see how that doesnt make sense?
[17:52:26] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: you say "fine" like those are even remotely close
[17:52:34] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: like
[17:52:36] heidi: youre using your personal views as a basis for an argument
[17:52:40] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: the mistake you just made was not reasonable/acceptable
[17:52:43] heidi: a logical argument.
[17:52:52] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: you mistook two completely unrelated points
[17:53:34] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: my personal views are based on logic
[17:53:36] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: so yeah
[17:54:18] heidi: haha
[17:54:20] heidi: oh wow.
[17:54:31] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: ?
[17:54:42] heidi: 'i feel this is obvious'
[17:54:46] heidi: therefore it is obvious.
[17:54:53] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: what are you even talking about?
[17:54:57] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I never said anything liek that
[17:55:29] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I actually have no idea where what you just said came from
[17:55:30] heidi: > [Monday, 18 March 2013 17:49:07 Buddhist !LogicOCed.] which is obvious

but its not obvious. YOU say its obvious
[17:55:34] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: ......
[17:56:03] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: are you implying that the policies of the UK are not far removed from logical reasoning?
[17:56:15] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I consider it obvious that they are
[17:56:19] heidi: ah
[17:56:23] heidi: now were reasoning, see?
[17:56:48] heidi: i think that, on this particular issue, the uk makes more sense than US
[17:56:57] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: and that's relevant, how?
[17:57:03] heidi: > [Monday, 18 March 2013 17:49:07 Buddhist !LogicOCed.] which is obvious
[17:57:14] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: see, the problem here is you have poor reading comprehension
[17:57:15] heidi: > [Monday, 18 March 2013 17:49:07 Buddhist !LogicOCed.] which is obvious
[17:57:17] heidi: derp
[17:57:18] heidi: quote wrong.
[17:57:22] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: or maybe you just substitute things you read for your own imagined ideas
[17:57:28] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: to project onto me
[17:57:28] heidi: > [Monday, 18 March 2013 17:56:03 Buddhist !LogicOCed.] are you implying that the policies of the UK are not far removed from logical reasoning?
[17:57:30] heidi: fuck me
[17:57:32] heidi: i cant quote
[17:57:38] heidi: there we are.
[17:57:48] heidi: im responding to this question right here.
[17:58:10] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: [12:48:17 PM] heidi: so why isnt policy the same the world over?
[12:48:28 PM] heidi: why doesnt the UK allow people to carry guns?
[12:48:31 PM] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: ...
[12:48:36 PM] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: this is why the conversation is pointless
[12:48:38 PM] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: you're very stupid
[12:48:50 PM] heidi: actually, mensa member here, but do go on
[12:48:57 PM] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: oh wow
[12:48:57 PM] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: IQ
[12:49:00 PM] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: counts for so much
[12:49:01 PM] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: derp
[12:49:05 PM] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: the policies of the UK or any country are far, far removed from logic
[12:49:09 PM] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: which is obvious
[17:58:18] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: the policies of the UK OR ANY COUNTRY
[17:58:36] heidi: so you're saying that the US is one of the few countries with a logical system?
[17:58:48] heidi: thats the height of arrogance
[17:59:07] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: ............
[17:59:09] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: holy
[17:59:09] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: shit
[17:59:11] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: how fucking stupid
[17:59:12] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: can you be
[17:59:19] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: what do you not understand about the word "any"?
[17:59:36] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: and
[17:59:38] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: [12:48:03 PM] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I'm saying that the argument of whether or not it's okay to disarm all people in a society indiscriminately is as clear-cut as math
[12:48:17 PM] heidi: so why isnt policy the same the world over?
[12:48:28 PM] heidi: why doesnt the UK allow people to carry guns?
[17:59:39] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: let's not forget
[17:59:41] heidi: i understand pretty well.
[18:00:05] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: your response to "this question is as clear cut as math" is "then why doesn't everyone understand it that way?"
[18:00:07] heidi: its like arguing with a religious fanatic over here
[18:00:15] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: rofl
[18:00:20] heidi: > [Monday, 18 March 2013 18:00:05 Buddhist !LogicOCed.] your response to "this question is as clear cut as math" is "then why doesn't everyone understand it that way?"

PRECISELY
[18:00:22] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: you're the one arguing from popularity
[18:00:28] heidi: everyone fucking understands math
[18:00:42] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: hahahaha
[18:00:46] heidi: if it was that clear-cut
[18:00:49] heidi: there would be no discussion
[18:00:58] heidi: but because there IS discussion
[18:00:59] heidi: it cant be that clear-cut
[18:01:05] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: ok maybe we're using two different definitions of "clear-cut"
[18:01:08] heidi: how do you not get this?
[18:01:13] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: because
[18:01:16] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: you're talking like everyone in the world
[18:01:18] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: is perfectly logical
[18:01:20] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: and i'm laughing at you
[18:01:34] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: few people in the world are more than idiots
[18:01:54] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: just because it's possible to come to a logically infallible conclusion on a topic doesn't mean anyone will
[18:02:08] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: when you said "clear-cut", I thought you meant "unambiguous/infallble"
[18:02:15] heidi: there we go assuming logical infallibility again.
[18:02:21] heidi: i cant argue with this.
[18:02:24] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: nothing is assumed
[18:02:30] heidi: > [Monday, 18 March 2013 18:02:15 heidi] there we go assuming logical infallibility again.
[18:02:34] heidi: *STATING
[18:02:38] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: well
[18:02:39] heidi: happy now?
[18:02:43] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: yeah
[18:02:47] heidi: good for you
[18:02:53] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: if you think it's impossible to come to a logically infallible conclusion on a real life topic
[18:02:55] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: then you aren't fit for this conversation
[18:03:03] heidi: hope you feel nice and warm in that logically unassailable tower you have there
[18:03:21] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: what would even be the point of you having a conversation if you think you can't find the right answer? must be a pretty pointless thing
[18:04:22] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: also you're implying that I said that I am infallible or something
[18:04:23] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: but I didn't
[18:04:25] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: just because it's possible to come to a logically infallible conclusion on a topic doesn't mean anyone will
[18:04:44] heidi: nono, you misunderstand. i firmly believe that gun availability is wrong. but because you're unwilling to consider other points of view, considering them logical fallacies solely by virtue of being on the opposite side of the argument, i cant argue with you.
[18:04:55] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: that's not what I'm doing
[18:05:16] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: you're making arguments from popularity and other pretty obvious logical fallacies
[18:05:56] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: we have a lot of miscommunication
[18:05:56] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: like
[18:05:59] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: the "clear-cut" thing
[18:06:03] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: was a total misunderstanding I think
[18:06:11] heidi: > [Monday, 18 March 2013 17:40:24 Buddhist !LogicOCed.] I am saying you're wrong and not giving you a chance to explain
> [Monday, 18 March 2013 17:40:27 Buddhist !LogicOCed.] because I don't care what you have to say
[18:06:18] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: well yeah
[18:06:19] heidi: this right here
[18:06:23] heidi: i cant argue with this
[18:06:27] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: good
[18:06:35] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I don't have arguments with christians about religion either
[18:06:40] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: same thing
[18:06:51] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I already know that they can't tell me anything that I'll learn from
[18:07:02] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: that's not closed mindedness, it's efficiency
[18:07:50] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: in otherwords, I can see their arguments in a concise enough format that I already know it has no impact on my preexisting opinions; none of the things they could say would validly refute anything I already think
[18:07:56] heidi: see here is the fundamental difference between us. we both have strong views, but whereas im willing to consider the other point of view and then refute it, you cant even comprehend the possibility of an opposite view being correct or having merit.
[18:08:06] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: that's not what I'm doing
[18:08:07] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: at all
[18:08:20] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: oh
[18:08:21] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: wait
[18:08:23] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: that depends on the topic
[18:08:41] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: if you mean, specifically, the idea of indiscriminate disarmament
[18:08:43] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: then yeah
[18:08:49] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I do not respect any opposite view
[18:08:58] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: just like anyone who says agnosticism is wrong, I do not respect
[18:09:02] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I can logically prove these things
[18:09:09] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: the former with some axioms
[18:09:15] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: if I gave you the axioms, you might agree with me
[18:09:31] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: but I don't care if you agree with me so I'm not going to bother going through the process of explaining my reasoning
[18:09:57] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: agnosticism is the best example though, because it requires no premises
[18:10:00] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: or assumptions in any form
[18:11:05] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: it's very possible that we only disagree on an informational level, where the information you have leads you to believe one thing, and the information I have leads me to believe another, but this can only be true in the context of "what would be most beneficial for society as a whole", or something which I consider equally unimportant as that
[18:11:30] heidi: > [Monday, 18 March 2013 18:08:49 Buddhist !LogicOCed.] I do not respect any opposite view.

but see here, this is why i see no merit in arguing with you. not because of any admittedly valid content you may have in your argument, but because of the way you approach the argument in the first place.
[18:11:43] heidi: we're done here.
[18:11:46] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: no shit?
[18:11:50] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I told you not to bother
[18:11:51] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: 30 minutes ago
[18:11:52] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: or more
[18:11:54] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: like
[18:12:09] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: you're talking to me like I'm a closed minded christian and you have to prove to me that I'm closed minded
[18:12:09] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: when in reality
[18:12:18] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I told you "don't bother telling me your argument, I don't care"
[18:12:29] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: it's not closed mindedness, it's that I don't think it's worth my time to hear what you have to say
[18:12:35] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: on the previous topic
[18:13:01] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: also
[18:13:07] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: that's not the way I approached the argument in the first place
[18:13:16] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: that's the way I approached the argument after you proved to me that you have nothing valid to say
[18:13:21] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: hue
[18:13:52] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: and you're trying to retroactively apply that statement to give yourself a sense of superiority
[18:13:53] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: it's kinda funny
[18:19:03] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: the epitome of reddit
[18:26:54] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: I also never made the most important argument for carrying a gun
[18:27:49] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: http://i.imgur.com/hva1HqN.jpg
[18:27:50] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: summed up in this picture
[18:33:46] Buddhist !LogicOCed.: and btw, heidi, even if I don't respect your reasoning, I respect your singing, and that's why we're here hue
[18:34:11] heidi: lets stick to that only then.