Oh yeah! Let's make a point by taking one particular event  I could answer with Columbine but I've got a litle more respect than that. And I'm talking about statistics. Not saying it's a eutopia, just saying that it's far less shitty than the USA  You could answer with Columbine (and effectively did), because let's remember, Columbine's resource deputy, Neil Gardner, was off school grounds, which made it safe for the mass murder there for as long as it took him to get back. Security theater coupled with rendering all guardians defenseless (who are implicitly trusted not to harm children anyway), works with brutal consequences. The simple fact that you need resource deputies show that there is something wrong with your country man Oo Thanks for reminding me that, I forgot how incredible it is that you actually need armed people in your school to protect your children xD Never thought that without guns there wouldn't have been a mass murderer in the first place? At least that's the case in Europe... |
|
|
|
Ok so a huge wall. Around all our countries. While still making them work for us? Why would they accept that? Why wouldn't they just start working for themselves?
the short answer is most of them have low iqs and aren't capable of doing much more than manual labour under the direction of a superior class or race Added to my ignore list. You're not only a horrible human being. You're also so full of yourself that you don't see how pitiful and stupid our current way of life is. I don't know how anyone can then condemn terrorism seeing people like you. It's perfectly normal they try to kill us all when you see the scums people like you are. |
|
|
|
Oh yeah! Let's make a point by taking one particular event I could answer with Columbine but I've got a litle more respect than that. And I'm talking about statistics. Not saying it's a eutopia, just saying that it's far less shitty than the USA |
|
|
|
Yeah sure, Israel is like so safe, no terrorism at all xD
it works at keeping out illegal immigrants and the few who get in from time to time are given a choice between prison and deportation. terrorist attacks inside israel are almost always done by people living inside the country since the wall went up because its too hard for anyone to get in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks like them or not, the israeli wall is effective just as sinking migrant boats of lesbos and destroying the libyan ports would be effective. the only difference being the israelis don't pretend to care about somalian and sudanese human trash and our leaders do. Ok so a huge wall. Around all our countries. While still making them work for us? Why would they accept that? Why wouldn't they just start working for themselves? And you want to build a wall around all Europe and USA? Oo |
|
|
|
No clearly you don't. Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your inability to read them correctly? The stats I referenced were for the GENERAL CRIME RATES of each country, not just violent crimes. You claimed the USA had higher crime rates, and I refuted that point with facts. It is not the fault of the statistics if you decide to change the definitions of your words when it is inconvenient for your argument not to do so.
Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your stupidity? You see stats claiming (from what your understood) that the shitiest countries in the world are the safest and the most civilized countries are the most dangerous. And you don't even think about it?  But well, thanks for making my point, the safest countries in the world are Europeans banning guns. USA is number 22. you forget that statistics only show what's known and reported, and in shitty countries, chances are a good portion of crimes aren't reported. Right... So they are even lower? I don't understand you're trying to help me? ^^ are you okay? I thought it was pretty clearly implied that the actual number of crimes is much higher than the ones shown in the statistics. 'not reported' means not included in the statistics, hence giving the pretense that the crime rate is lower, when in reality, that is untrue. you also need to take into account that with larger countries comes a larger population, and hence a larger number of people willing to commit crimes. mere statistics can only say so much, your arguments are too narrow minded. Yes but you're saying that crimes are not reported in shitty countries... Which already have incredile high crime rates... So they have even higher crime rates from what you explained. You also need to take into account that the crime rate of the stats is per 1000 habitants, so that it doesn't matter the size of the country. In case you didn't understand, TECSHare's stats are misleading because it gives the impression that high crime rates are in Iceland and Europe whereas it's a classification so the top countries are the one with the lower crime rate, not the higher. Just look at any classification of safest countries, Europeans countries are number one |
|
|
|
Well love is the feeling I get through the verb loving.. You can't define a feeling. It's up to everyone to have his own definition.
I didn't asked you anything: why you had the idea of giving your own definition? Best regards. You kidding me? -_- "How do you know the meaning of the word love if you don't have faith?" Just answered you... Ok: you are correcting a answer that was not an answer before.You cannot use my God to feel because you don't have my same God. If you use the verb loving to feel love you are using my God the problem is that you are giving back not the God that I gave you but your wife (with your love in it). Because without the Faith in God you will steal my God from me and return me anything.Is that clear? Best regards. No, but seems like we can't really talk ^^ We're too different, but I wish you the best. Best regards. |
|
|
|
No clearly you don't. Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your inability to read them correctly? The stats I referenced were for the GENERAL CRIME RATES of each country, not just violent crimes. You claimed the USA had higher crime rates, and I refuted that point with facts. It is not the fault of the statistics if you decide to change the definitions of your words when it is inconvenient for your argument not to do so.
Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your stupidity? You see stats claiming (from what your understood) that the shitiest countries in the world are the safest and the most civilized countries are the most dangerous. And you don't even think about it? But well, thanks for making my point, the safest countries in the world are Europeans banning guns. USA is number 22. you forget that statistics only show what's known and reported, and in shitty countries, chances are a good portion of crimes aren't reported. Right... So they are even lower? I don't understand you're trying to help me? ^^ |
|
|
|
Well love is the feeling I get through the verb loving.. You can't define a feeling. It's up to everyone to have his own definition.
I didn't asked you anything: why you had the idea of giving your own definition? Best regards. You kidding me? -_- "How do you know the meaning of the word love if you don't have faith?" Just answered you... |
|
|
|
You didn't ask the first one. Oxford dictionnary says: Old English, from ecclesiastical Latin, from Greek amēn, from Hebrew 'āmēn 'truth, certainty', used adverbially as expression of agreement, and adopted in the Septuagint as a solemn expression of belief or affirmation.
I gave you my definition of love. If you don't like it give me yours.
Yes.
If you post a definition post the link. That is called netiquette. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_in_technologyYou give definition of loving not love: loving is a verb, love is a thing.When you define your love for your wife (why not your family?!?) you define the act of loving taking my God, transforming him into a verb and explaining by example.After having used my God you will return it to me completely screwed because you don't have faith in God. You could have done that if you had faith in God, since you don't, your definition is about loving and not love. Defining loving and not love is not what I asked for. You didn't replied to my question. Best regards. Well love is the feeling I get through the verb loving.. You can't define a feeling. It's up to everyone to have his own definition. |
|
|
|
So I'm damned?
But what if I'm a good man?
I mean, I love my wife, I'm a faithful husband. I love my family and my friends. I always help my neighbors if I can.
But if I don't believe in the good God (cause every religion claims its God is the good one) I'm damned to Hell?
How do you know the meaning of the word love if you don't have faith? Best regards. The fact that all I want is here to be happy and that I'm ready to die for her and that I can't imagine living without her and that she makes me so happy by just staying by my side. Isn't it love? I asked you about the source of the meaning of the word amen and you didn't replied (you didn't post sources about the meaning of the word amen). I asked you about the meaning of the word love and you blab about your sentiment to your wife, putting practically your wife in the middle. I ask you a third question since you did not replied to my previous two: do you understand English? Best regards. You didn't ask the first one. Oxford dictionnary says: Old English, from ecclesiastical Latin, from Greek amēn, from Hebrew 'āmēn 'truth, certainty', used adverbially as expression of agreement, and adopted in the Septuagint as a solemn expression of belief or affirmation. I gave you my definition of love. If you don't like it give me yours. Yes. |
|
|
|
No we don't. Not a single country in the world or in Mankind history managed to do it. What do you want to do? Build a giant wall to keep immigrants at bay? xD
works for israel Yeah sure, Israel is like so safe, no terrorism at all xD |
|
|
|
No clearly you don't. Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your inability to read them correctly? The stats I referenced were for the GENERAL CRIME RATES of each country, not just violent crimes. You claimed the USA had higher crime rates, and I refuted that point with facts. It is not the fault of the statistics if you decide to change the definitions of your words when it is inconvenient for your argument not to do so.
Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your stupidity? You see stats claiming (from what your understood) that the shitiest countries in the world are the safest and the most civilized countries are the most dangerous. And you don't even think about it? But well, thanks for making my point, the safest countries in the world are Europeans banning guns. USA is number 22. |
|
|
|
Ok I'll try to be organized: -Yes the matter is different. I claim that guns makes the society more violent. You answer me that it allows people to defend themselves from government. Both statement can be true even if one is in favor of gun control and the other is against. I think the first one is more important but that's just a matter of preference. -Do you think that owning guns make your government under control? Then answer my question, how many wars did the USA start? And how many people did the USA kill? If your government is "under control" then... WTF is a government out of control? -"Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your inability to read them correctly?" I did, this is why I say I'm not sure I understand the statistic well... I just try to discuss with you you know? For the stats... Well sorry but I think you read it on the wrong direction. If I listen to what you say, Iceland is the most dangerous place in the world (by far) and India the safest? Look EVERYWHERE else on the internet and you'll see it's the contrary. http://www.theweek.co.uk/64495/the-10-safest-countries-in-the-world-and-the-10-most-dangeroushttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/safest-places-to-travel-the-15-most-peaceful-countries-in-the-world-a6748256.htmlSo I'd say you're the one not understanding your stats. You're really stupid aren't you? ^^ Bring some common sense dude. For the last part... I didn't take the time to read what a dumb guy not able to understand a chart or to think alone recommended me. |
|
|
|
HEre we are!
You're just a religious stupid asshole. Like every religious freak you think a fucking book written by peasants 2 000 years ago has the truth xD
Thanks. And you are simply an ignorant religious atheist who... Well go on with your god, I'll go on with my science. Just don't try to prove God with science. ... for whatever reason won't look at the truth of science to see that God is proven by science, and therefore... And if God exists, he's either a complete asshole, or doesn't care about us. ... as you have been unwilling in the past to learn about the great goodness God is showing us, and why and how He is doing such goodness... Just a question, everything in the Bible is true then?
... and by the sound of it, you aren't going to start looking for God, now that you have been shown the truth... that God exists.  Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. See that? I don't give a fuck about God ^^ But just tell me, if science proves the existence of God, why the most a country is educated (so know things in science), the less it believes in God? For the simple reason that God sent Jesus, His Son, to die on the cross to save people. So that the people who want to be saved will be the ones who believe in God, while the ones who want to be damned will not believe in Him, no matter how cross-eyed they get, avoiding the science that shows God, while investigation all the detailed aspects of that same science. So I'm damned? But what if I'm a good man? I mean, I love my wife, I'm a faithful husband. I love my family and my friends. I always help my neighbors if I can. But if I don't believe in the good God (cause every religion claims its God is the good one) I'm damned to Hell? |
|
|
|
That is convenient that you "don't trust videos in general", it seems to mirror your general distrust of inanimate objects like firearms rather than critically examining the actual usage of these tools. It makes it much easier for you to not have to actually engage in any fact or logic based debate. Apparently the same goes for the Bloomberg article that sources the very conservative estimates based on The National Crime Victimization Survey endorsed by a well respected pro-gun control Harvard scholar. I bet you have no problem watching television and believing every word, but videos on the internet clearly are automatically suspect and should not even be reviewed. Probably for the best, if you watched them you might actually learn something, and I know how painful that must be for you.
I don't have TV. As I said I don't trust videos in general. It's not a good media.
"The logic of my statement: No gun -> less violence -> no need to defend yourself, police is enough." One question... lets assume for a minute that police don't have an average response time of 5-20 minutes and they are efficient at protecting you. What tools do they use to do this? Oh that's right, police use guns! In effect you aren't for banning guns, you are just for centralizing the use of force and giving the government a monopoly on violence. Obviously the government can be trusted! That has clearly worked so well in the past. I am not even going to bother making a long list of genocides perpetrated against disarmed populations by their own governments, just open any history book. This is a VERY DIFFERENT debate. If you think it that way then gun freedom can be considered as something good. What I Tried to say is that guns lead to more violence and more crimes in the population. But if you're ready to endorse higher crime rates against the possibility to be armed in case the government doesn't satisfy you... Well that's different. Why not. After all I perfectly agree, centralizing guns means giving more power to the state. I'm ready to do that simply because France has a history of revolutions, when the people had no weapons but managed to deal with its government anyway. But this can justify gun freedom. I disagree but I understand and it's only a question of choice. "My proof/fact? Well the whole Europe works that way with rather good results. Lower crime rates than the USA, less shootings since the invention of gun than in the USA in the last 10 years. Sounds like some proof to me, or at least less than just my opinion!" Really? Are you sure about that? BTW if you are going to debate with me try using complete sentences, it is kind of difficult to debate a statement that doesn't even make sense linguistically. Additionally the statement "less shootings" is a nonsense statement because it does not differentiate from criminal assaults, suicides, gang activity, justified legal defensive use of force, or other instances of firearm use, therefore it is impossible to define in any meaningful way as you stated it. In summary, yes that is just your opinion. Here is a list of per-capita crime rates by nation. Topping the list is most of Europe. Number 22 on the list, USA. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000Okay I don't understand the graph very well but it seems rather strange to me... According to you it means the most dangerous country in the world is Iceland? And Yemen and India (which is well known for its crime rates) are one of the safest? Oo I mean, either there is a problem with your stats, either we have a problem with the representation of foreign countries xD |
|
|
|
That is convenient that you "don't trust videos in general", it seems to mirror your general distrust of inanimate objects like firearms rather than critically examining the actual usage of these tools. It makes it much easier for you to not have to actually engage in any fact or logic based debate. Apparently the same goes for the Bloomberg article that sources the very conservative estimates based on The National Crime Victimization Survey endorsed by a well respected pro-gun control Harvard scholar. I bet you have no problem watching television and believing every word, but videos on the internet clearly are automatically suspect and should not even be reviewed. Probably for the best, if you watched them you might actually learn something, and I know how painful that must be for you.
I don't have TV. As I said I don't trust videos in general. It's not a good media.
"The logic of my statement: No gun -> less violence -> no need to defend yourself, police is enough." One question... lets assume for a minute that police don't have an average response time of 5-20 minutes and they are efficient at protecting you. What tools do they use to do this? Oh that's right, police use guns! In effect you aren't for banning guns, you are just for centralizing the use of force and giving the government a monopoly on violence. Obviously the government can be trusted! That has clearly worked so well in the past. I am not even going to bother making a long list of genocides perpetrated against disarmed populations by their own governments, just open any history book. This is a VERY DIFFERENT debate. If you think it that way then gun freedom can be considered as something good. What I Tried to say is that guns lead to more violence and more crimes in the population. But if you're ready to endorse higher crime rates against the possibility to be armed in case the government doesn't satisfy you... Well that's different. Why not. After all I perfectly agree, centralizing guns means giving more power to the state. I'm ready to do that siply because France has a history of revolutions, when the people had no weapons but managed to deal with its government anyway. But this can justify gun freedom. I disagree but I understand and it's only a question of choice. "My proof/fact? Well the whole Europe works that way with rather good results. Lower crime rates than the USA, less shootings since the invention of gun than in the USA in the last 10 years. Sounds like some proof to me, or at least less than just my opinion!" Really? Are you sure about that? BTW if you are going to debate with me try using complete sentences, it is kind of difficult to debate a statement that doesn't even make sense linguistically. Additionally the statement "less shootings" is a nonsense statement because it does not differentiate from criminal assaults, suicides, gang activity, justified legal defensive use of force, or other instances of firearm use, therefore it is impossible to define in any meaningful way as you stated it. In summary, yes that is just your opinion. Here is a list of per-capita crime rates by nation. Topping the list is most of Europe. Number 22 on the list, USA. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000Okay I don't understand the graph very well but it seems rather strange to me... According to you it means the most dangerous country in the world is Iceland? And Yemen and India (which is well known for its crime rates) are one of the safest? Oo I mean, either there is a problem with your stats, either we have a problem with the representation of foreign countries xD |
|
|
|
That is convenient that you "don't trust videos in general", it seems to mirror your general distrust of inanimate objects like firearms rather than critically examining the actual usage of these tools. It makes it much easier for you to not have to actually engage in any fact or logic based debate. Apparently the same goes for the Bloomberg article that sources the very conservative estimates based on The National Crime Victimization Survey endorsed by a well respected pro-gun control Harvard scholar. I bet you have no problem watching television and believing every word, but videos on the internet clearly are automatically suspect and should not even be reviewed. Probably for the best, if you watched them you might actually learn something, and I know how painful that must be for you.
I don't have TV. As I said I don't trust videos in general. It's not a good media.
"The logic of my statement: No gun -> less violence -> no need to defend yourself, police is enough." One question... lets assume for a minute that police don't have an average response time of 5-20 minutes and they are efficient at protecting you. What tools do they use to do this? Oh that's right, police use guns! In effect you aren't for banning guns, you are just for centralizing the use of force and giving the government a monopoly on violence. Obviously the government can be trusted! That has clearly worked so well in the past. I am not even going to bother making a long list of genocides perpetrated against disarmed populations by their own governments, just open any history book.
This is a VERY DIFFERENT debate. If you think it that way then gun freedom can be considered as something good. What I Tried to say is that guns lead to more violence and more crimes in the population. But if you're ready to endorse higher crime rates against the possibility to be armed in case the government doesn't satisfy you...
Well that's different. Why not. After all I perfectly agree, centralizing guns means giving more power to the state. I'm ready to do that siply because France has a history of revolutions, when the people had no weapons but managed to deal with its government anyway.
But this can justify gun freedom. I disagree but I understand and it's only a question of choice.
"My proof/fact? Well the whole Europe works that way with rather good results. Lower crime rates than the USA, less shootings since the invention of gun than in the USA in the last 10 years. Sounds like some proof to me, or at least less than just my opinion!" Really? Are you sure about that? BTW if you are going to debate with me try using complete sentences, it is kind of difficult to debate a statement that doesn't even make sense linguistically. Additionally the statement "less shootings" is a nonsense statement because it does not differentiate from criminal assaults, suicides, gang activity, justified legal defensive use of force, or other instances of firearm use, therefore it is impossible to define in any meaningful way as you stated it. In summary, yes that is just your opinion. Here is a list of per-capita crime rates by nation. Topping the list is most of Europe. Number 22 on the list, USA. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000Okay I don't understand the graph very well but it seems rather strange to me... According to you it means the most dangerous country in the world is Iceland? And Yemen and India (which is well known for its crime rates) are one of the safest? Oo I mean, either there is a problem with your stats, either we have a problem with the representation of foreign countries xD |
|
|
|
HEre we are!
You're just a religious stupid asshole. Like every religious freak you think a fucking book written by peasants 2 000 years ago has the truth xD
Thanks. And you are simply an ignorant religious atheist who... Well go on with your god, I'll go on with my science. Just don't try to prove God with science. ... for whatever reason won't look at the truth of science to see that God is proven by science, and therefore... And if God exists, he's either a complete asshole, or doesn't care about us. ... as you have been unwilling in the past to learn about the great goodness God is showing us, and why and how He is doing such goodness... Just a question, everything in the Bible is true then?
... and by the sound of it, you aren't going to start looking for God, now that you have been shown the truth... that God exists. Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. See that? I don't give a fuck about God ^^ But just tell me, if science proves the existence of God, why the most a country is educated (so know things in science), the less it believes in God? |
|
|
|
All you have to do is apply the 3 points of science that I have mentioned to see that science proves that God exists.
AMEN! Science proves the existence of God!!!! Just.. Why no one thought about that before? Quick! Give a Nobel to this man xD And you proved the existence of God in only 3 points! Incredible don't you think so? xD Science does not prove the existence of God and atheism is not a Religion: if you think that atheism is a religion (user BADecker) you have been scammed. Please don't use the word amen if you don't believe in the same God. Thank You for the discussion. Best regards. Wow, I didn't think we would agree on anything ^^ And I meant no offense with "amen" but the word is only and old Hebrew expression meaning "so be it". So I'm afraid I'll use it anytime I feel like it's adapted. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
