A sign of the apocalypse, a girls night out, or both?

[TPaine7]

http://www.slatev.com/player.html?id=1564399807



Please note:

1) No oppressive and controlling evil husbands or boyfriends in sight. (Ok, the girl on the date seemed oppressed. She was smiling and thought it was the best date of her life, but what does she know--she's under oppressive male control. LOL.)

2) The evil is invading that bastion of righteous resistance to Second Amendment rights--New York City.

3) If good looking gals are engaged in this perversion, you know the guys will be. And if the phobic walls break down, who will maintain purity? Fear and hatred are the only things maintaining civilization!

4) Chicago and D.C. must stand firm for ignorance, prejudice and corruption. They are gun control's only hope.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. You subverted the text of the meta-narrative

The internal meta-narrative of the untransformed text exists as its own artifact in cultural eigenspace that speaks to the modality of the fe/male power-exchange relationship instantiated as a phallomimet(r)ic object in the con/text of a transactional, post-Marxian dialectical paradigm.

It's major whack material for horny gun dudes.

All they needed was to take one of them, put her in stiletto heels, tuck a riding crop under one arm, and stick a cigarette in her mouth, and the ensemble would be complete. (For sci-fi geeks, anthropomorphize into a telepathic Esperanto-speaking human/cat hybrid with glasses.)

Sadly, the bisexual latex spanking scene would inevitably be under-represented, ne c'est pas?

Think of the reconstructed cinematic reality of Betty Page Meets Tony Montana appropriating a Zydeco sensibility, baby.

--p!
Damn, I forget race. So make her a black chick with some nice back yardage and a poppin' bass soundtrack goin' on. A detective or a spy, cross-trained in law and physics, and still down with the sistahs.

Or Jewish.

[TPaine7]

3. Interesting analysis.

I like it.

[iverglas]

6. you forgot something else

It wouldn't be complete in the Guns forum without the obligatory rape scene.

[TPaine7]

9. If I "forgot" it and iverglas remembered it . . .

which one of us is fixated on bringing it up in the Guns forum?

To whom is it truly "obligatory"?

See what I mean, people? That caricature isn't so far from the mark in certain cases.

[Tejas]

10. you forgot the crowning touch of PVC

where's the part about her wearing a shiny black NRA hat?

7/10 :)

[iverglas]

2. oh look!

[TPaine7]

4. As over the top as it admittedly was

and intentionally so, there actually are people who think a male giving a female a gun, or teaching her to shoot, is doing so for malevolent reasons. They curse and make wild accusations when they are told of such things.

The caricature is not as strained as some might think.

[iverglas]

5. and even more amazingly

there are people who claim that there are people who think that a "male" giving a "female" a gun, or teaching her to shoot, is ALWAYS AND ONLY doing so for malevolent reasons.

Obviously that is what they claim, or there would be no point to the opening post in this thread at all.

[TPaine7]

7. I said what I meant, people,

don't be distracted by attempts to twist it.

I can actually back up my claim with a citation. I don't need to twist at all.

[iverglas]

8. feel free

Your claim is:

there actually are people who think a male giving a female a gun, or teaching her to shoot, is doing so for malevolent reasons

and I have absolutely no doubt that you would offer a statement about "A", i.e. ONE SPECIFIC, man, doing this in respect of "A", i.e. ONE SPECIFIC, woman, as proof of the accuracy of that claim.

Heh. Don't be fooled, people. That one's called equivocation, and it's just one poisoned arrow in the quiver of the demagogue.

[Tejas]

11. new low for even you

Oh come on!

Are you so vain as to sit there and try to get one to believe there is not one anti alive that would spin a range session involving a female and male into a scenario of malevolence?

Go search GD, won't take long to find an anti that swears men shove guns on women in an effort to make women feel "adequate". Some sick bastards out there.

[iverglas]

14. a direct hit, wasn't it then?

You say:
there actually are people who think a male giving a female a gun, or teaching her to shoot, is doing so for malevolent reasons

I say:
and I have absolutely no doubt that you would offer a statement about "A", i.e. ONE SPECIFIC, man, doing this in respect of "A", i.e. ONE SPECIFIC, woman, as proof of the accuracy of that claim.

and damned if you don't do exactly that:

Are you so vain as to sit there and try to get one to believe there is not one anti alive that would spin a range session involving a female and male into a scenario of malevolence?

You picked a classic technique of demogoguery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibology

A Jesuit priest would equivocate in order to protect himself from the secular authorities without (in his eyes) committing the sin of lying. For example, he could use the ambiguity of the word "a" (meaning "any" OR "one") to say "I swear I am not a priest", because he could have a particular priest in mind who he was not. That is, in his mind, he was saying "I swear I am not one priest" (eg "I am not Father Brown who is safely in Brussels right now".) This was theorized by casuists as the doctrine of mental reservation.

Doing it in reverse is equally time-honoured. You know of a statement referring to a particular man and a particular woman, and you pretend you were referring to the statement about that particular man and that particular woman when you talked about people who think a male giving a female a gun ....

The entire world knows you weren't, you know?

[TPaine7]

17. Not really, iverglas

Not only did you miss,

You missed the wrong target.

a direct hit, wasn't it then?


You say:
there actually are people who think a male giving a female a gun, or teaching her to shoot, is doing so for malevolent reasons

I say:
and I have absolutely no doubt that you would offer a statement about "A", i.e. ONE SPECIFIC, man, doing this in respect of "A", i.e. ONE SPECIFIC, woman, as proof of the accuracy of that claim.

and damned if you don't do exactly that:

Are you so vain as to sit there and try to get one to believe there is not one anti alive that would spin a range session involving a female and male into a scenario of malevolence?

You picked a classic technique of demogoguery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibology

A Jesuit priest would equivocate in order to protect himself from the secular authorities without (in his eyes) committing the sin of lying. For example, he could use the ambiguity of the word "a" (meaning "any" OR "one") to say "I swear I am not a priest", because he could have a particular priest in mind who he was not. That is, in his mind, he was saying "I swear I am not one priest" (eg "I am not Father Brown who is safely in Brussels right now".) This was theorized by casuists as the doctrine of mental reservation.


Doing it in reverse is equally time-honoured. You know of a statement referring to a particular man and a particular woman, and you pretend you were referring to the statement about that particular man and that particular woman when you talked about people who think a male giving a female a gun ....

The entire world knows you weren't, you know?



Tejas never said the underlined part. Of course, it is correct anyway. You are not the only one who thinks that the underlined sentence is true. Everyone knows it. We have, many of us, met them. We are not fooled.

[iverglas]

18. oh dearie me

I forgot to notice that the name on the post was different. Interchangeable as the cast of characters here may be, I would certainly not knowingly put words in mouths they didn't come from.

I'm not really seeing how the fact that Tejas did not make the initial statement matters, in this case. He seems to have adopted it completely.



You are not the only one who thinks that the underlined sentence is true.

No, sweetums. I am not ANY one who thinks the underlined statement --

there actually are people who think a male giving a female a gun, or teaching her to shoot, is doing so for malevolent reasons

-- is true, because I know that the indefinite article "a" in that sentence is intended to mean "any", when what I said was about a specific man and a specific woman.

And I'm just not stupid enough to fall for dirty discourse tricks.

[TPaine7]

25. It must be great to live in a reality where you get to chose your opponents intent.

is true, because I know that the indefinite article "a" in that sentence is intended to mean "any", when what I said was about a specific man and a specific woman.

I guess if you get to make up things and put them in the other person's mouth you always win the debate--in that imaginary reality.



I'm just not stupid

LOL.


And I'm just not stupid enough to fall for dirty discourse tricks.

Putting words in other's mouths is dirty, but to be fair you didn't fall for it, you just perpetrated it.

[TPaine7]

13. How about "one specific" person who thinks

a male giving a female a gun, or teaching her to shoot, is doing so for malevolent reasons?


You know you're not the only one, iverglas, and so does everyone else reading this--you're just a handy example.


It is not demagoguery to point out an obvious fact, using a singular example.

[iverglas]

15. dizzy yet?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. You are the only person here to claim that.

[iverglas]

20. oh look! there's one now!

html fixed


You are the only person here to claim that.

You're apparently claiming that I am one of these:

people who claim that there are people who think that a "male" giving a "female" a gun, or teaching her to shoot, is ALWAYS AND ONLY doing so for malevolent reasons.

Well hey. Kudos for coming right out and stating the false thing, instead of dancing and mumbling like your confrères.

I guess the explanation would be that they know perfectly well that such a statement would be false, while you actually might not realize that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. I guess I should have said you are the only one to post that.

[iverglas]

22. no, really, you shouldn't have

since I didn't post it. But that's okay. You go ahead and say I did. I'd be disappointed otherwise.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. Who did post it?

[iverglas]

24. uh, TPaine7

Post 4 in this thread.

If you think he was referring to something that exists outside his head, and specifically on this board, and if you're going to allege that I posted it, why don't you try backing all that up with something?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. Post#4 doesn't match what you posted.

What you wrote first appears in Post#5 and that is the only place it appears? How's that for backing it up?

David

[TPaine7]

26. The quote in question...

people who claim that there are people who think that a "male" giving a "female" a gun, or teaching her to shoot, is ALWAYS AND ONLY doing so for malevolent reasons.



is iverglas' straw man fiction.

I didn't say that in post 4 or anywhere else.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. My point exactly.

Iverglas changed the post and attributed it to you.

David

[iverglas]

30. I'm gonna try to help you boys out here

This, of course, may be an Herculean task.


Here's what I said in the allegedly offending post:

and even more amazingly

there are people who claim that there are people who think that a "male" giving a "female" a gun, or teaching her to shoot, is ALWAYS AND ONLY doing so for malevolent reasons.

Obviously that is what they claim, or there would be no point to the opening post in this thread at all.

Now. If the intent of the statement I was referring to was to point out that there are people who think that A PARTICULAR "MALE" giving A PARTICULAR "FEMALE" is doing so for malevolent reasons -- what would the purpose of the post have been??

I'm quite sure that I could find a story of a particular ANYTHING doing something very bad, or something very good, to or for a particular anything else.

If I found and reported a story about a PARTICULAR person taking a peanut butter sandwich from a PARTICULAR starving child, and said that the person was evil, would it make sense for someone to post that there are people who think that a person who takes a peanut butter sandwich from a starving child is evil?

No, it wouldn't. The whole thing would be a total non-story.

The ONLY REASON why someone would do that would be to try to make it look as if I had said that ANY person who takes a peanut butter sandwich from ANY starving child was evil. And since we all know that some starving children can be killed quicker by peanut butter sandwich than by starvation, we know that only a person speaking from stupidity or bad faith would say such a thing.

The situation in which I commented on the gun-conversion antics of A PARTICULAR man in his dealings with A PARTICULAR woman, based SPECIFICALLY on the PARTICULAR FACTS of that PARTICULAR CASE, had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD.

And yet the thread was obviously posted for one reason and one reason only: as a PURPORTED rebuttal to what I said.

It has NOTHING TO DO WITH what I said.

And the fun part is how the person who started this thread refuses to spit the mealies out of his mouth and say anything that could be described as remotely straightforward about this.


The sole and only purpose of this thread was to pretend that I had said that a "male" giving a "female" a gun, or teaching her to shoot, is ALWAYS AND ONLY doing so for malevolent reasons.


There is no other remotely reasonable conclusion from the facts possible.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. No help necessary.

You took what someone posted changed it and attributed it to them to try and make a point. You got caught and called on it. No help needed. I'm not saying that makes you dishonest but if the shoe fits.

David

[iverglas]

33. you know

If you believe that false allegation of yours, you're essentially acknowledging that I have some pretty good grounds for thinking that the people who read my posts are dumb as posts.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. People can read for themselves.

I know you think I'm dumb. I really don't care. You chose not to post the content that would prove my allegations untrue. Of course, that would be hard considering they aren't. You posted what you posted. I can't help it if you try and mislead people. Why don't you throw another rape comment out to see if that will make you more believable?


David

[iverglas]

29. so here's a very simple, non-Herculean task for you

html fixed

there actually are people who think a male giving a female a gun, or teaching her to shoot, is doing so for malevolent reasons. They curse and make wild accusations when they are told of such things.


Tell us what and whom you were talking about.

That should really be quite easy, I would think.

[Tejas]

12. They're all NRA plants!

I call BS on the vid, not one of them asked "do you have this in Mauve"?


joke! joke! :sarcasm: joke!!!1!!

[iverglas]

16. well I thank my stars for that

not one of them asked "do you have this in Mauve"?

Having to listen to the word "mauve" being spoken south of the border hurts the ears.

It rhymes with "Rove", friends.



No, I don't think my stars, I thank them ...

[SteveM]

32. You got a link to that "obligatory rape scene?" (nt)

[iverglas]

34. here's one that leaked out of the dungeon

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3313970&mesg_id=3315611

Will that do?

[SteveM]

36. Not much here. If he dropped the "butt" and I would agree. (nt)