Utopia Talk / Politics / Homocide, assault and crazy people

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 27 09:08:53 Hood Jergul wrote homicide. I would put mass shootings in a specific category under homicide. They are "special" for many reasons. I claim that, countries with strict gun control are not generally less violent. Just that where there is a abundance of guns, where you would have simply an assault or aggravated assault, you will more often have a homicide, because guns are really good at killing people. The USA has a higher rate of homicides compared to for instance the UK, but a lower level of assault as per victimization numbers. So this is supporting your postulation that reducing guns will not reduce incidents [of violence], but will reduce the number of [dead] casualties. Be they from mass shootings or just "normal" one on one violence. It also takes into account Jerguls point about "spur of the moment" violence, which arguably goes up if there are more guns to grab a hold of.
Hrothgar Member	Tue Feb 27 09:20:17 Are 'spur of the moment' suicides higher in the USA? Seems like that category would also likely be impacted by difficulty in obtaining a firearm.
hood Member	Tue Feb 27 10:16:00 Nim, I agree with you there. But I was more meandering about the role of mental health as a preventative measure on these mass incidents (compared to run of the mill assaults). Because these mass incidents are so rare, because the relationship between assault rates and body count (homicide) isn't correlative, can we really say that improved mental health services will actually make an impact on extreme incidents? Perhaps mental health services will help reduce assaults as a whole, but I highly doubt that it will impact shooters.
TJ Member	Tue Feb 27 10:32:36 Both sides spend long periods of time defending their position in gun debates. All you need to do is study prohibitions to know how it will cycle. Blah, blah, and blah prohibition. It isn't the same, eh? Think again, the subject isn't traffic laws, it is a Constitutional one at the very foundation. It isn't about safety or other issues vigorously contended. Mostly It is about winning the argument. People will always exist that abuse right and privilege. If you you think that alcohol and drugs are substantially different you may as well consider stepping out of the box of winning. Guns are a part of a deeply rooted culture that will be impossible to abolish much less control. Many of you choose to turn the law abiding into felons. I picture such arguments as a military mindset. Do you really wish to punish a very large number of the population because of the minuscule disregard of law to preserve an impossible defense? I doubt anyone would want weapons to be an underground event in a population of 330m and quickly rising. I rarely bother with this type of chatter,but I have a picture of a dog at the base of a tree barking at a bear. If the bear decides to challenge the dog what do you think will happen? I assure you it wouldn't be a collective issue of friendship. Stop attempting to replace all the empty closest with weapon enthusiasts. They'll venture out and do what they are going to do without the so called moral majority approval. Unintended consequences!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 27 10:54:08 Hood I agree, I am skeptical towards the efficacy of mental health services and their impact on such events.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 27 10:58:55 TJ Guns are ”substantially” different than drugs. Drugs only kill anyone but the person that ODs. The amount of damage someone drunk or high can afflict on the people around them is still a factor of the weapons they can grab.
TJ Member	Tue Feb 27 11:01:05 It's not about what the differences are, it was about the concept.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 27 11:01:05 And things that are in a constitution can still be archaic.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 27 11:03:50 The concept of how easily something can be abused is kinda lame without the nuance of how much and whome it can damage. Which by the way, the level of damage is one of the points.
TJ Member	Tue Feb 27 11:07:27 Again, I am pro reasonable and workable solutions that will actually make a difference. Keep winning. :)
Rugian Member	Tue Feb 27 11:08:11 "Which by the way, the level of damage is one of the points." Agreed. And as the 20th century repeatedly demonstrated, a tyrannical government that murders millions of its unarmed citizens is far more dangerous than the occasional shooting. Cheers.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Feb 27 11:34:56 If someone wants to kill someone they will figure out a way. Sometimes they really don't want to kill someone, but occasionally they come close unintentionally. A recent case in point was Sen. Rand Paul. The neighbor probably didn't want to kill Paul, but he probably was only an inch away from it.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 27 12:29:14 >>Keep winning. :)<< I assume that you are not jergul. That we can discuss topics disagree, question one and other and ask for clarification. Then again I don’t remember us having discussed a disagreement in depth, those are usually a good time for a total break down in civility :-) I am not your antagonist.
TJ Member	Tue Feb 27 12:52:46 I don't view you as my antagonist. I view every individual individually. I am unwilling to open the door wide for organized crime having another stream of revenue for illegal activities. That is exactly what prohibitions do. I will say that making statements to persuade an individual from individual I would avoid such statements as below. "And things that are in a constitution can still be archaic." Has biology become archaic? How you doing on that front? :)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 27 13:11:45 "I am unwilling to open the door wide for organized crime having another stream of revenue for illegal activities. That is exactly what prohibitions do." We could legalize everything, then we would have no crime. So this is not a great principle to argue from. I am pro reasonable gun ownership, like a driver license. "Has biology become archaic? How you doing on that front?" This is again a lateral move and also unspecific. I don't mind changing biology provided we understand what we are doing and do it slowly. We don't, so I pick what has a proven track record over first order logic solutions and social experiments. The US constitution been amended 27 times. It can be amended another 27 times.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 27 13:16:37 Just as a note, behavior that has evolved over millions of years and predates our own species is not a concept similar to a constitutions that is a couple of hundreds of years old, with clear provisions on how to change it. The unresolved practical concerns are not about how to amend legislation.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 27 13:20:20 Would you mind a process similar to getting a drivers license for gun ownership?
TJ Member	Tue Feb 27 13:28:01 I have a gun license. If I was against I wouldn't. I don't mind altering gun laws reasonably. Everything can be amended and everything will pass for each of us collectively and individually. Not to be redundant, but I'm for reasonable solutions that will make a difference without crushing individual freedom. I can afford all the taxes and hoops anti weapons individuals can dream up, but that would be discriminate against a large part of society. I have fairly deep pockets. Be reasonable and I'll be receptive. You wouldn't be making lateral moves would you?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 27 13:43:04 "I have a gun license. If I was against I wouldn't." And so far that is the only thing I have said that resembles policy. The difference would be that it would be more stringent than currently in the USA and less than in Sweden. The rest of the posts have been about if the different arguments/reasons are convincing our true. "Be reasonable and I'll be receptive." Specifically, what am I saying that is unreasonable? "You wouldn't be making lateral moves would you?" Depends on my mood and the poster. I don't know that I have made any on this topic with you.
TJ Member	Tue Feb 27 14:12:34 It isn't so much of what you are saying that is unreasonable. I'm responding to all angles of the debate. You and I are not the only ones to be satisfied in an open debate and not knowing what eyes are peering into the scope makes a difference. It is a tried old debate for me and why I said previously seldom do I enter such debates long term. I'd suggest you continually reconsider how you reconstructed the pieces from your personal experiences. At the time I'm sure the puzzle fit rather appropriately at the moment. I've been to the pit too and constantly reevaluating to strengthen my structure. I have no desire to destroy individuality. I have a considerable amount of years in the process, but I'm an equal opportunity listener as well as speaker.
Wrath of Orion Member	Tue Feb 27 19:58:43 Regarding many posts ago in the previous thread - I thought it was obvious what I was saying. Apparently not. I am not suggesting denying people their rights based on whatever. Obviously the 2nd Amendment would need to go for that to work. To be honest, I really don't give a shit either way. I'm just throwing random stuff out there. But the idea that just about any dumb motherfucker in this day and age can own a small arsenal of weapons with very few restrictions "just cuz" is pretty funny.
TJ Member	Tue Feb 27 21:47:53 I don't want anyone who doesn't take civic and personal responsibility for themselves to legally possess a single weapon. I prefer the term responsible. Dumb is too subjective and age isn't an assured acceptance of responsible. Everyone has preferences.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 28 02:40:25 TJ I don’t think you are being reasonable. You and me are going back and forth, you obviously are asking _me_ questions and making responses to me, when I ask for specifics you say it is free floating. Individuality. I am for that, which is why I find it strange that you would reference topics I have discussed with others that have deteriorated into mudd wrestling, because of imo those specific people. You do get the specific context of the lateral move ”winning”? Also it isn’t fair that I have all the responsibility of being reasonable so you are receptive. Neither of us have a button to push to ”make it so”. And to be fair I do not know that my opinions on this topic are in much greater detail than, I think the ”gun culture” has become a worship of guns. My view on gun ownership is not >at all< representative for the culture I live in.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 28 02:45:40 TJ I can only agree with your last post. In practical terms how would one go about to enforce that? I am asking because I don’t know how to do that without making excluding a bunch of people who would not qualify under those terms. We can reference drug use, there is no doubt that certain people should never take drugs. I wouldn’t mind a license approach there either. Certain things, require a certain level of responsibility.
jergul large member	Wed Feb 28 04:36:38 http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv16.pdf For a source thag gives a reasonable US baseline. http://www.ssb.no/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/statistikker/vold/hvert-3-aar/2016-03-08 1.9% chance of experiencing violence per year in Norway compared to 1.2% in the US. Census based, so is essentially a gold standard (what people feel is criminal violence may vary, but the subjective feeling is essentially what counts. State orchestrated violence is not included, nor are deaths following from violence (as census would by definition not be able to speak with the dead). So by the metric of all types of civic violence as experienced by the reporting population without regard to how serious the violence is: The US is less violent than Norway (and Norway is statistically a hell of a lot less violent than me - my life time score puts me as an outlier. Yay the joys of the rural districts). All told - very counter-intuitive.
TJ Member	Wed Feb 28 10:22:13 Nim, I'm not much of a dreamer, so as I take a clear view of my surroundings, is how I've always operated from an early age. Wanting something doesn't mean you can get it. Below is what I think is possible right or wrong at the present. It would not surprise me that all legal purchases are already secretly registered in some states. 1) Eliminate bumps 2) Background checks-good luck with that as we have recently witnessed the irresponsibility and complete failure of documentation in the Parkland disaster. If you want to know what is in the soup all you need do is view the problems between Federal and State on illegal immigration. It is no different with weapons. Life is more often a bitch than not when it comes to things all of us want. As for what you can agree with it could easily be arranged if not for individual freedom. Tax returns as well as the background check would make it very simple. You can't stop a deranged person or hot tempered blinded fool from acting out, the latter being most difficult of the two. 70 years on this planet and for a single year have I been threatened of being blown to pieces or shot. Many close incidences all thanks to my cushy and deceitful government to thank. I've never set the bar too high and I never set too low either. Most attempts to create peace and fairness ends in chaos. Everyone rates peace and fairness diffidently. Utopia is an automatic washout.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 28 10:53:55 I have no argument on utopias. The diminishing returns on those investments can usually be studied in the form of mass graves. And I agree that you can not stop deranged people from acting out, you can not stop murders from taking place. Not outside of dreams anyway. We could mitigate the amount of damage a single person can cause, we have to. These mass shootings have the same effect as terrorist attacks. The goal is to create mayhem and to that effect they are very effective. They effect the social order of a society in ways that 10 000 murders or 50 000 assaults a year will not. They have a detrimental psychological effect that can not be disregarded. The idea that some individuals for whatever reason wants to kill a whole lot of people and is willing to go down doing so, is scary. And it is a cat and mouse game as seen with Islamic State attacks. There may be a price to pay to be able to live in densely populated areas.
TJ Member	Wed Feb 28 11:40:29 Mass murders have taken place throughout history with regularity. It is hardly a new or different reality. And..., we as you put it, have done all the we are clearly going to do, pressing forward with impossible and the astronomical ideologies in the mix. It is illogical to expect any sort of rapidity. We as societies are where we are collectively at the present. We, we, we... I'm living in peace and tranquility because I have taken responsibility for myself, family, and community. Your we is attempting to remove responsibility not encourage. That is the direction we, as you put it, have taken and it saddens me greatly when focusing on your we. Only massive upheaval will alter the course repeated throughout history until the next we need to do something more than we are. Your heart is in the right place, but your mind is still rearranging the pieces from my perspective. Not a bad place to be. I'm not an argumentative individual about things I can't control and those I can there is no argument, only action.
hood Member	Wed Feb 28 11:45:09 "I'm living in peace and tranquility because I have taken responsibility for myself, family, and community." And your neighbor? Does your neighbor take responsibility for themselves, their family, their community? If both you and your neighbor take your own respective responsibilities to your community, would it not be appropriate for you to state that we (you and your neighbor) take responsibility for your community?
TJ Member	Wed Feb 28 11:52:36 All my neighbors take responsibility for themselves, but I have a feeling our definition of neighbor might be different. Trap away...
hood Member	Wed Feb 28 11:59:46 I'm just pointing out that you included community in your emphasis of pronoun use. My point being that if multiple people are sharing responsibility in taking care of the community, that by necessity the dialog becomes "we are" taking care, not a bunch of individual "I am" taking cares. Or even more to the point: Appropriately using the pronoun we does not preclude assuming personal responsibility. It does not remove individual responsibility from any given individual. It only recognizes that there are responsibilities beyond personal ones and that they can be equally important.
TJ Member	Wed Feb 28 12:11:16 Stand corrected, even though you take exception to my usage of language and grammar I feel confident that the idea was presented clearly enough within context. They are equally important and grammar aside it was clearly insinuated. All my neighbors are no longer community oriented yet are responsible for themselves. We can split hairs if you chose, but tbh it won't last long.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 28 12:14:24 I will sign under what hood wrote. And add that mass murders are occuring less frequently than historically. And perhaps more importantly are occuring with a great deal of variability in the western world. One country clearly in the lead. So then the discussion is not if it can be reduced in the USA, but if people are willing to do what all these other countries have.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 28 12:24:54 There are somethings ”we” need to do together. There are something ”we” can’t leave up to personal responsibility. I don’t know where you personally draw the line, but the constitution or any set of laws is we effort and mass murder is by its’ nature a collective tragedy.
TJ Member	Wed Feb 28 12:26:10 If enough were willing it would have already been accomplished. It will eventually become a reality when some of the inconsistent liberties are removed. I suggest patience with the concern.
TJ Member	Wed Feb 28 12:50:14 "There are somethings ”we” need to do together." There are "some things" we can do. The personal level should never be taken lightly. No sign of me disagreeing with we can do things toward improvement. The use of we was also my point. The complete application of we is the hurdle we need to jump. We haven't accomplished much in that respect.
hood Member	Thu Mar 01 09:40:18 Dumbass in Chief continues to blame violent media diets for contributing to real world violence. Games. Movies. TV. None of these things have any measurable real world effect on violence. None. Not a single shred.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 01 10:30:57 Hood That may not be true. But the effects of games, movies and tv may counterbalance. Immobilization cost (time in media violence is not time doing violence) may balance out increased violent tendencies when outside in the sunlight. All of this measured against the moving yardstick of ever decreasing neurologial damage to lead exposure. I am just saying its not something to be catagorical about.
hood Member	Thu Mar 01 11:02:11 The correlation has been studied extensively. Violence in videogames does not lead to real world violence.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 01 14:15:06 Perhaps study the difference between correlation and causation? We do no that violence trends have decreases as video game play increase. Correlation. We do not know the causual relationship between the two. I indicated some food for thought in my last post.
hood Member	Thu Mar 01 14:36:19 Eh, you are correct that I used correlation somewhat incorrectly. The data says there is no evidence that violent videogames cause real world violence. There isn't even any evidence for a correlation.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 01 15:13:48 There could still be causation effects. We don't know. I suspect violence in media does trigger violence, but it is fully compensated for by consumers of violence spending a lot of time consuming it. But again, all I am saying it is not something to be catagorical about.
hood Member	Thu Mar 01 16:25:30 Yes, I know what you're saying. You're saying that the people who research these things, who have come out with definitive agreement in their research, who say that there is no discovered causation between violent videogames and a provocation of violence in the real, might have just been completely incompetent. Because you suspect things. With your massive knowledge on the subjects, the studies, you suspect things. Fuck off, hot rod.
hood Member	Thu Mar 01 16:29:58 Or to put it more succinctly: You are correct in asserting that there will never be a level of proof to persuade the faithful. We cannot prove a negative and if you hold out religious-like belief that the repeated, repeated, repeated attempts to prove a positive have failed because we're still missing something, well then feel free to believe in your faith. Just don't come at us with your pseudo science.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Mar 02 08:20:49 lol :)
jergul large member	Fri Mar 02 10:22:04 Hoodless (get it?:) Not my fault you dont understand research, bro. The education level of this forum sucks. But merely reflective of society at large I suppose.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 02 10:29:01 In sum: Research says that because violence levels are falling as exposure to violence in media increase, there is no correlation. Causation has not been determined (and how would you do that exactly beyond indepth interviews of violent perpetrators? Using qualitative data to generate quantitative data is something I tend to frown at) Get a degree, bro
hood Member	Fri Mar 02 10:38:54 "Research says that because violence levels are falling as exposure to violence in media increase, there is no correlation." No. Research says that there is no causal link in video game violence consumption causing real world violence. There's been plenty of media coverage about it due to the resurfaced trend of blaming video games, feel free to check out even a smidge of coverage that mentions the research on the subject. Causation has not been found, despite plenty of study. If you wish to hold out religious zealotry and say that despite many attempts at finding proof positive failing, it still hasn't been proven, well then I will leave you to your gods. However, as I stated before, do not attempt to pass on your superstition as science. Go back to the boat and find your mermaid.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 02 10:45:42 Hood Now is time for you to dig up the research you are citing. You may want to start checking up your ass, as that is where I reckon you are pulling it from. Understanding research is based actually having read it as a decent departure point. It is as I say it. Overall violence is falling while media consumption is increasing. No correlation for that reason. Overall violence can increase and decrease for many reasons. I am simply saying that you cannot discount causation simply because there is no correlation. You are missing this. I blame your crap education. Feel free to blame whatever you like.
TJ Member	Fri Mar 02 10:47:37 "I suspect violence in media does trigger violence, but it is fully compensated for by consumers of violence spending a lot of time consuming it." Plethora of causes nicely disguised within diversity against diversity picking diversity and levels of wealth are inconsequential. Something isn't missing, many things seem to be. Taking away for the fix is not an answer. Violence was here long before violent games and guns. Is the emotional creative desire for excitement something that can be eliminated? Stop pumping the organ and grab your scalpels or axes to allow choice. Excess for one isn't a problem, but for others it is and the triggers are many. The common denominator is human development. The root of a tree is found in the ground. Lets remove the ability to produce adrenalin at birth. That'll fix it! Sometimes I feel like being difficult. Is this one of them? Humans love to self-destruct.
hood Member	Fri Mar 02 11:02:11 "I am simply saying that you cannot discount causation simply because there is no correlation." And I am telling you that no causation has been found. "You are missing this." No, I amended my statement to use the correct word. No. Fucking. Causation. Since you're to fucking stupid to get out of your own way, here: http://the...video-games-and-violence-91607 15 year researcher telling you and those like you to shut the fuck up with your fake science and faulty opinions.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 02 11:12:37 You also suck at finding sources. The author's paper is behind a firewall. Reviewing the APA 2015 statement on violence, we find: "Quantitative reviews since APA's 2005 Resolution that have focused on the effects of violent video game use have found a direct association between violent video game use and aggressive outcomes (Anderson et al. 2010, Ferguson 2007a, Ferguson 2007b, Ferguson & Kilburn 2009). Although the effect sizes reported are all similar (0.19, 0.15, 0.08, and 0.16, respectively), the interpretations of these effects have varied dramatically, contributing to the public debate about the effects of violent video games" Demonstrating that your blanket statement is incorrect. Colour me surprised. Go back to school, bro.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 02 11:13:56 For an example of actual causation: If only someone would dress up like a superhero and hold a massacre in say a movie theatre. Oh, wait.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 02 11:20:17 Anyways, off to the movies. Perhaps get a clue while I am gone?
hood Member	Fri Mar 02 11:22:44 The APA's stance is: A. Not scientific, something the author of the article clearly stated. B. Wrong. C. In direct opposition with the majority of research on the subject. D. Potentially inappropriately influenced Beyond that, it cited the author I just posted as evidence for its conclusions, and he is clearly disputing their judgment. There's no possible way to paint the APAs statement as support for your false argument.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 02 17:47:52 You posted an opinion piece as the actual reseach paper the fellow wrote is behind a paywall. My argument remains that you cannot validly claim that there is no casual relationship between violence in media and violence in society. The APA's stance is that violence in media is associated with violence in society. Which supports my valid argument. Go back to school, bro. Science means something and means shit if you don't understand it.
hood Member	Fri Mar 02 19:15:30 "You posted an opinion piece" Yes, written by a 15 year researcher whose papers were cited by the APA. The person who did the research is telling you the APA is mischaracterizing his research. "My argument remains" Yes, I get your argument. You are saying that we haven't proved a negative, so it still might exist. How's Nessie? Or are you a Bigfoot kinda guy? "The APA's stance is that violence in media is associated with violence in society." And people doing the research are telling you that the APA is wrong and acting politically in their mischaracterization of the actual science. "Which supports my valid argument." Your argument isn't valid though. The APA is not a neutral party and it's statements shouldn't be given weight. It had a decade of prior talking points to validate and put together a bias team headed by a known opinionated researcher. You can have 2 guesses as to what that researcher thought before finding evidence for their statement. "Go back to school, bro. Science means something and means shit if you don't understand it." Ironic coming from the guy who has 0 knowledge about the subject and is just stating opinions with the same evidential foundation as Zeus.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 02 19:19:32 Hoodless Nice word salad, bro. You were arguing concensus. You were wrong. Probably due to your piss poor educational level. So you insist on doubling down on stupid. Sad, so sad.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 02 19:27:21 Its actually the defining feature I will disagree with seb or CR on matters of principle (to a point where we all think the others are gits), or with Cherub because she is a twat, but the fundamental difference rests between those that are educated to understand research and those who are not. Most of you are simply stupid in a strict academic sense (unable to read or understand properely formated research papers - they are incidentally meant to be universally accessible independent of field if you get the format). We are all surrounded by idiots. The only question is if you realize that or not.
hood Member	Fri Mar 02 19:28:18 Yes, consensus among researchers. Or do you suddenly think that a 10% minority representation somehow negates a consensus?
jergul large member	Fri Mar 02 19:30:15 Feel free to decribe yourself as research illiterate if that sounds better in your ears. Or whatever. But you sort of have to pay your dues to get a clue (possibly though self-study, but if you have the discipline for that, then you may as well get the university credits for it).
jergul large member	Fri Mar 02 19:32:15 Any more random numbers you would like to pull out of your ass? APA represents what % of the field does your anal cavity reckon?
hood Member	Fri Mar 02 19:46:46 "But on the wider issue of real-world impacts on violent behavior "surveys of scholars in the field suggest that only 10 to 15 percent of scholars agree that violent games contribute to societal violence, so scholars who'd support Trump appear to be in the minority," Ferguson said." From just one of many articles that have popped up now that this is back in the media again. "Feel free to decribe yourself as research illiterate if that sounds better in your ears. Or whatever." You keep going on about this like it's relevant. I get it, you think I can't read a research paper. Your opinion holds no value to me. I'm not going to bother addressing the pitiful delusions your ego convinces you are reality. The fact that you think there's any causation here tells me you haven't been hip to the relevant research for over a decade. That your only supporting detail is a useless comment from the APA is pretty telling. Enjoy your Nessie, brah. I'm done attempting to correct your clinical stupidity.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 03 03:02:51 Hood You are citing a article citing a study. First off, we would need the study. Reminding you that I do not think violence in media (which is significantly more than violence in video games) is a net contributor to societal violence. You are failing at step 1 - scientific mindset. You are not reading the studies you are resting your argument on. There is definately causation. The question is more how significant causation is, and if it is counterbalanced by factors in violent media that decrease violence. My personal view is that it is counterbalanced. Particularly by the immobilization cost consumers of violent media pay by spending time in front of their screens. Go back to school. You cannot contribute constructively to scientific debate.
hood Member	Sat Mar 03 07:47:52 Dumbass people think you need to repeat things you've been doing for a decade just because retard fishermen think they smart. Funny shit.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 03 10:18:55 Go back to school, bro. You are not even close to a scientific mindset.
hood Member	Sat Mar 03 10:55:32 You could provide a stack of degrees with your name on them. You'd still be a flaming tard; you can't fix stupid.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 03 16:13:22 All a stack of degrees would prove is that I am able to read and understand research.
hood Member	Sat Mar 03 16:17:29 That'd be impressive, considering your inability to understand basic communication.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 03 16:34:56 What would be impressive is your going back to school to get a clue. I could tutor you, but I think you would best reach your potential in an organized educational setting.
hood Member	Sat Mar 03 18:46:25 I don't need to learn fish gutting techniques, but thank you for the offer.
jergul large member	Sun Mar 04 03:37:57 Yes, that would be too much like real work. I doubt you are up for that. School in an organized educational setting would help you reach your potential. For what it is.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Mar 04 05:04:46 This is the guy who read an entire essay into the sentence ”advile and male infertility” to make a ”point” about people not understanding research. Which seems to be the new thing. http://www...hread=81818&time=1515484451552 We judge thee by the fruits of your tree, and your tree only gives shitapples.
delude Member	Sun Mar 04 06:06:36 ...and he wonders why I ever called him dishonest.
hood Member	Sun Mar 04 09:27:54 But but but Nima! He read a comment by the APA! Clearly he's up to date on the relevant research, providing solid evidence for his well supported stance! You might see why I just went with insults instead of honest argumentation.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Mar 04 09:57:33 80-90% insults and 10-20% miscellaneous is a good approach with jergul. Anything else and he may think you are taking him seriously.
jergul large member	Sun Mar 04 10:56:13 Class is in session I see. Just get educated. Or stop quoting research you do not understand. I don't think you realize how irritating watching you mangle information is. Do you discuss sports with your wife/girlfriend? Stop being your wife.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: