• AmberPrince@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cool. You are successfully arguing semantics instead of considering the issue of getting less kids shot in school.

    • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      And you’re appealing to emotion instead of making any effort to understand and effectively solve the problem you have strong opinions about. You’re entitled to your opinions but if you don’t know what you’re talking about maybe shut up, you’re not doing anyone any favors being an uninformed loudmouth.

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            No you’re actually at step 0.2: “argue about the definitions of words used in describing the problem”.

              • AmberPrince@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                If you don’t understand what we are talking about in regards to gun violence at this stage of modern history you have no business debating anyone.

                • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I understand that if you’re advocating for a ban on assault rifles, which have been banned since 1934, you’re not helping anyone but your opponents.

                  • AmberPrince@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No, you apparently don’t understand. The contemporary public refers to “military-style” weapons as assault rifles. That is, if the gun looks at home in the hands of a soldier in camouflage the general public refers to it as an assault rifle. Again, if you do not understand the discussion around gun violence in today’s world you should not be arguing over it.

                    Also, you’re still arguing semantics and haven’t actually said anything, in any of your replies to anyone, about what can be done to curb gun violence which is the exact point the OP meme was making.

              • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sure, boss, and when somebody cries about their kid getting hit by a truck on the way to school, you can show up and say, “Well, akshually, it’s a crossover SUV, so it has a unibody.” I’m sure that completely changes the issue. /s

                • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If there’s an epidemic of people being killed by pickup trucks, and a bunch of dipshits are on the internet screaming “we have to ban SUVs!” despite SUVs already being illegal, then yes, yes I will.

      • Iceman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        How many school shootings have we had now? How could you not understand that kids geting shot is at the very core of the issue? You’re not calling out a fallacy here, you’re acting like a psychopath ignoring the issue.

        You bait yourself to get triggered by an obvious joke. You argue semantics even after being called out on it and don’t even know what an appeal to emotion is. Ever wonder if you’re the one that needs to stop typing for a bit? You come of as nothing but the uninformed loudmouth you ask to shut up.

        • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re probably right, why understand a problem when remaining ignorant and screaming loudly is so much more likely to solve it

            • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m telling people that theyre only helping their opponent when they have strong opinions about an issue they don’t understand at all.

              • irmoz@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                “The issue” isn’t “knowing the precise terminology of specific firearms” you fucking gimboid. Get with it. The issue is being shot.

                • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You don’t.think understanding what you want to ban is an important thing to consider when you’re pushing to ban something?

                  • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I really do want to jump down your throat and point out your inconsistencies with everyone else but I really don’t feel like beating that dead horse right now

                    Instead I’ll just settle for reminding you what a fucking moron you are because this is the internet and personal attacks are fair game because it isn’t a formal debate setting where semantics actually matter you twat.

    • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️@7.62x54r.ru
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have a solution, but the capitalists will hate it because it will impact their sales. Pass common sense SSRI laws and prohibit minors from taking them. Make it harder for adults to be proscribed them. Investigate doctors who over proscribe them.

      • AmberPrince@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        At least you have a solution unlike the other guy. I disagree with it, but at least it is an actual proposed solution.

        • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Oh, in this case I have a solution too. We need to heavily regulate uses and distrubution of moon regolith. The solution is way better than that guy’s is, because there is not a lot of moon regolith available and it’s hard to get, so it will be very easy to achieve. Of course it has nothing to do with the problem, but neither is his

      • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        What? How is making a class of antidepressants harder to get at all a gun control solution? What the hell am I missing here? Did everyone just see “common sense” and “laws” and forget to read the rest?