Sorry for walking over the bridge?Anti-gunner says what?
Sorry for walking over the bridge?Anti-gunner says what?
Sorry for walking over the bridge?
Where have you been that the bridges are mirrored? Tell me, so I know not to go there. Not into glitter and rainbows either.It’s like looking in a mirror huh?
Liberace estate?Where have you been that the bridges are mirrored? Tell me, so I know not to go there. Not into glitter and rainbows either.
I'd like your statement to be a bit more logically integrated with the conversation as a whole. Or maybe it's a comprehension problem. Nothing I said should make you logically conclude "then guns do kill people."Then guns do kill people... and I never again want to hear the argument placing blame on the individual in a position superior to that of the gun they used.
You were making a longer point. That's fine. Would have been nice for you to be up front and all, but ya don't. Anyway, there are many points in between the long ones. While you're making your longer point, it's well and good for someone to come along and make a practical shorter point. Like, yeah, ideas are the things tyrants fear. People have enough of the old idea and decide they want the new, now you're talking revolution. Of course that's about ideas. The practical end of that is, usually, at some point people start shooting. Because the people who didn't like the new ideas coming out resist the desire to change. Sometimes the change is downright oppressive and should be resisted. Sometimes the change is to overthrow tyrants. Either way someone's gonna start shooting.Perhaps my memory is longer that most, because the argument is related to the "pen" being mightier than the "sword" discussion from much earlier, that you decided to necromance. The contention is that tyrants fear speech more than they fear arms, and that it's ideas that make people decide to engage in violent revolts... not simply having arms. Perhaps you did not understand that argument, are were simply jumping into a conversation you did not understand, as it is obvious with your "people control tools," you at least recognize the concept if not understanding that you were strengthening my argument.
I'd like your statement to be a bit more logically integrated with the conversation as a whole. Or maybe it's a comprehension problem. Nothing I said should make you logically conclude "then guns do kill people."
Or, maybe all your receivers were covered and you tried to force one. I dunno.
It seems like it. But I do recall the conversation about the pen is mightier than the sword. And I think he has been on that point here, but it's not all that easy to tell because so many conversations to track and who knows what he's on about this time. That's why it would be good if he'd actually have a conversation instead of making some simple statement and then seeing if people can figure out what he's talking about. It's like what KLB said somewhere. It's like he's trying to play Socrates. I'd much rather just have a conversation.He's shifted the goal post so much it's effecting him now as well.
No. Almost nothing is always. Sometimes a regime just falls apart and then other people are there to pick up the pieces and make what they want. No guns required. That kinda happened in the Soviet Union. Hungary was a good example of the pen being mightier than the sword.Things don't always devolve to armed revolution.
It’s like looking in a mirror huh?
Where have you been that the bridges are mirrored? Tell me, so I know not to go there. Not into glitter and rainbows either.
True. People around here like to act because there are examples that support their view, that is the only correct view. I see that here on both sides. The incessant dancing around reality gets old. Reality is that both are often needed, and there are many examples where both were not.No. Almost nothing is always. Sometimes a regime just falls apart and then other people are there to pick up the pieces and make what they want. No guns required. That kinda happened in the Soviet Union. Hungary was a good example of the pen being mightier than the sword.
But, because almost nothing is always, the pen is not always mightier than the sword either. Some societies use swords to stifle the pen. Ask China about that. Who won in tank vs protestor? The restrictions placed on political expression as a result of Tiananmen square are still in place today. China's sword is mightier than pen. But maybe not always.