In the gun debate who do you think is the most stupid?

[organofcorti]

You got to love the stupidity of the position that some words on a piece of paper will stop evil people from getting the tools they want to do evil shit with. Not to mention they need a whole other group of thugs armed precisely with the tools they want to get rid of to enforce those words.

It doesn't get more stupid than that. 

You've gotta love the stupidity of someone who makes inflammatory posts in a thread about the stupidity of making inflammatory posts.

It doesn't get more stupid than that. 

[myrkul]

You got to love the stupidity of the position that some words on a piece of paper will stop evil people from getting the tools they want to do evil shit with. Not to mention they need a whole other group of thugs armed precisely with the tools they want to get rid of to enforce those words.

It doesn't get more stupid than that. 

You've gotta love the stupidity of someone who makes inflammatory posts in a thread about the stupidity of making inflammatory posts.

It doesn't get more stupid than that. 

The topic is which side is more stupid. He made a clear argument that the "anti-gun" side is the stupid one, specifically that rather than eliminate the tools they seek to eliminate, what they will be doing is concentrating the ownership of those tools in the hands of a political elite, and that the idea that a piece of paper can stop someone from acquiring a tool is absurd.

[organofcorti]

You've gotta love the stupidity of someone who makes inflammatory posts in a thread about the stupidity of making inflammatory posts.

It doesn't get more stupid than that. 

The topic is which side is more stupid. He made a clear argument that the "anti-gun" side is the stupid one, specifically that rather than eliminate the tools they seek to eliminate, what they will be doing is concentrating the ownership of those tools in the hands of a political elite, and that the idea that a piece of paper can stop someone from acquiring a tool is absurd.

From the OP:

I thought as someone from the UK I could have a different take on this gun 'debate' which seems to have devolved at least on the official places like mainstream news into nothing more than a shouting and insult match .......

I was referring to the fact that hazek was not adding anything new to the debate, and he was doing it in a rude and shouty manner. Do you honestly think that sort of post helps anyone understand either point of view?

[myrkul]

You've gotta love the stupidity of someone who makes inflammatory posts in a thread about the stupidity of making inflammatory posts.

It doesn't get more stupid than that. 

The topic is which side is more stupid. He made a clear argument that the "anti-gun" side is the stupid one, specifically that rather than eliminate the tools they seek to eliminate, what they will be doing is concentrating the ownership of those tools in the hands of a political elite, and that the idea that a piece of paper can stop someone from acquiring a tool is absurd.

From the OP:

I thought as someone from the UK I could have a different take on this gun 'debate' which seems to have devolved at least on the official places like mainstream news into nothing more than a shouting and insult match .......

I was referring to the fact that hazek was not adding anything new to the debate, and he was doing it in a rude and shouty manner. Do you honestly think that sort of post helps anyone understand either point of view?

Not really, but it wasn't meant to add anything new, or really explain anything to anyone. It was ridicule, pure and simple. To understand the anti-gun control position, ask Thomas Jefferson:

 "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

To understand the pro-gun control position, imagine that everyone is carrying around an armed, ready to blow, rain-triggered nuclear explosive strapped to their hip. That should get you close to the level of fear.

[FirstAscent]

To understand the pro-gun control position, imagine that everyone is carrying around an armed, ready to blow, rain-triggered nuclear explosive strapped to their hip. That should get you close to the level of fear.

Is that your dream?

[organofcorti]

I was referring to the fact that hazek was not adding anything new to the debate, and he was doing it in a rude and shouty manner. Do you honestly think that sort of post helps anyone understand either point of view?

Not really, but it wasn't meant to add anything new, or really explain anything to anyone. It was ridicule, pure and simple. ...

Of course it was. And this thread is about poking fun at emotional slanging matches that don't add anything useful to the debate. Don't misconstrue my comment as being pro gun control, it was solely that hazek made the type of comment the OP created the thread to ridicule in the first place.

Unless it was a piss-take and hazek is actually pro gun control?

[augustocroppo]

Yes, literally.  Do you know what the term 'literary license' means?  Is English your first language?

No, I do not know exactly. No, it is not my first language. Do you have a problem with that?

The accusation is that, generally speaking, gun control advocates consider the tool to be the part of the equation to be controlled. This implies, and for some is literally so by their own admission, that they consider the tool to be fundamentally evil/bad/harmful etc. That is the anamorphasizing that your side of the debate is accused of, for which Myrkul was openly & plainly mocking you for.

Let me understand, you are saying that I accused you to posses an 'evil/bad/harmful' weapon because users are arguing for the benefits of gun control?

At no moment I even came near to suggest that.

Let me remind you the premise from organofcorti: 'Sure. But if you didn't own a gun, you wouldn't feel safe.'

This is your premise: 'I don't believe that is generally true.  It's certainly not true for myself.  I've never felt unsafe, before or after owning firearms. All my firearms spend the vast majority of their time locked in a rather large safe, because they are valuable. The rest of the time, they are shooting at paper. I don't hunt, myself.(...) and the rifle is the king of personal weapons.  I'm a sheepdog among a flock of sheep, and I'm fully aware of that.'

My observation: 'Then, because you do not hunt (and therefore, you do not kill), you can safely transfer back to you the moral conduct and avoid any criticism. In other words, when your premise can become target of criticism you assign your conduct to the firearm, when your premise cannot become target of criticism you do not assign your conduct to the firearm.'

I did not said that you "has done something illegal or wrong", even less that you firearms are 'evil/bad/harmful'. I am showing off how you act in the debate to avoid criticism. You even proclaimed that a weapon is 'the king of personal weapons'.

So, yourself assigned human or moral qualities to the firearms, not me.

Get it over!

Again, is English your first languge? Perhaps this is simply a misunderstanding?

Ad hominem is your preferred logical fallacy? There was not a misunderstanding.

No.  You made an observation for which you believe I were justifying my intent.  I have already explained your error of observation.  I have made zero attempt to justify my firearms ownership.  Again, I do not require your consent.

You indeed made an attempt to justify your firearm ownership: 'The military culture was not for me either, but I do enjoy shooting, and also understand that the judicious use of force is a cornerstone of civilization; and the rifle is the king of personal weapons. I'm a sheepdog among a flock of sheep, and I'm fully aware of that. Many of those here that defend the personal ownership of weaponry are also sheepdogs.'

The majority of them, yes.  And yet, the vast majority of them are never employed in that purpose.  At least not in this country.  Punching holes in paper is, by a wide margin, the most widely intended purpose of those who buy them.  This is particularly true with regard to rimfire caliber firearms, many of which are specifically designed to maximize their effectiveness for this particular purpose.  All you have to do to find those is google 'target pistol' or 'target rifle' and you will immediately notice that they have features that make them particularly poor choices for self-defense or hunting.

This alone puts the lie to your line of thought.

Once again, I didn't present a premise.  You are projecting.  You seem to believe that you are engaged in a debate.  You are not.  I do not require your approval.

This is a forum, do you know that? There is a debate going on here. At no moment I demanded you to present any justification to approve your right to own a firearm. You presented yourself a justification why you own a firearm and I made an observation of your premises.

I said: 'So far I made an observation of how you justify your intent to use the firearms you own.'

You said: 'The rest of the time, they are shooting at paper. I do have a concealed carry license, but rarely carry at all.  I have the weapons, and the license, in the event that I ever do feel that I should need to carry.'

You implied that you have the intent to shooting at papers to entertain yourself. You are showing "to be right or reasonable" your intent to use the firearms you own.

Definition of justify
[with object]
1 show or prove to be right or reasonable:

Not less than three of my firearms were specifically designed to sling projectiles at paper targets, and would have a limited usefulness in the role of self-defense.  I literally have other firearms that were bought to serve that role, and designed for that purpose.

Once again, you presume that you are engaged in a debate.  You are not.  You are being mocked.

Oh, you are in the debate, but I am not? So the "sheepdog" metaphor is just a joke?

Accusing me of a falacy of logic has no mening if I'm not engaged in a debate.

Really? So you are just fooling around?

'I'm not anti-gun because I joined the USMC at 17, partialy out of rebellion to my childhood.'

I am not, and I don't believe that Myrkul is either.  There is no debate here; neither concerning this topic generally (with non-citizens of the United States) nor in this thread specificly.

You have no more say about how I live or act than Piers Morgan does.  And like him, you are welcome to your opinion; but you can keep it.  Your opinion on my rights is inmaterial.  You don't have an argument you even have the standing to compel me to respond to.

I still have the right to criticize your actions and arguments in this forum. Do you have a problem with that?

There is no need that all sheepdogs are protecting socity at any given time.  The only requirement is that the sheepdogs exist, or the sheeps' civilization cannot continue to exist.  That is the premise of the analogy.  Again, did you bother to read ithe link I provided?  Or did you simply not understand it?

You really are trying to stretch the analogy beyond it's limits, but what if a sheepdog society would lead to warfare?  What difference would it make to the sheep?  They are no longer around.  BTW, you're a sheep, in this analogy.  Don't take that as an insult, but you wouldn't be around to complain about the vilent nature of society if only the sheepdogs remained.  I think that it's an irony that you are falling right in line with the predictions of the author of that analogy.  Maybe you would see it if you bothered to read the link.

An article with self-prediction elements... How pathetic. I should write one of these one day and then use in a debates here:

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial.

Hilarious: 'On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior.'

By the way, do not think the entire existence of the article is valid to support your analogy. You did not even bothered to present the relevant quotes.

http://a-human-right.com/

You have the right, but not the ability.  What you don't understand that your government does not grant you rights; it can either respect them and provide a legal structure that standardizes the social rules, or refuse to honor your rights and deny any practical utilization of your rights.  I live in the former, you live in the latter.

There is no such thing of 'practical utilization of your rights'.

I do not require your approval to honor rights which you pretend I have. You are not in a position to dictate what rights I have.

You are comfortable with it because you have been conditioned to believe that you are safe and protected by the uniformed sheepdogs.  This is understandable.

I said: 'I am comfortable with this lack of right because it is not just applied over me.'

So from this premise, you made a whole straw man argument.

How funny you are!

I still have the right of self-defense and I voluntary agree with society that men and women in uniforms can protect me.

You know what is really funny?

'You might not like the idea that we are around, but we are necessary for your peaceful society to continue to exist; whether or not we may be wearing a uniform.'

So, what is what, Moonshadow? Is the individual entitled or not entitled to feel 'safe and protected by the uniformed sheepdogs'?

But on some level, even you understand that weapons cannot be removed from your society and expect that it will continue to remain "civil".  You may not be wiling to admit it to yourself, and the presence of weapons my be hidden from view most of the time, but they are there and you know it.

"Baaaa"

Of course I understand! I am full aware that a civilian society cannot be fully disarmed!

By the way, do you like to imitate a sheep often?

Sometimes, othertimes it was not.   You speak of a topic for which you have already admitted you have no first hand knowledge.

Well, I did not admitted that. Moreover, I still can argue with basic knowledge about a subject.

That varies significantly. The majority of my own firearms are rimfires, so they would be particulary ineffective if self-defense was their primary design consideration.  Excellent at small game hunting, though.  A rabbit doesn't leave much meat if you use a caliber actually intended for self-defense levels of energy.

If you are trying to ask if I have considered "less lethal" weaponry for self-defense, then the answer is yes.  I actually have such weapons, including but not limited to, a 12 gauge shotgun that is designed to fire a shorter than normal shotgun shell, packed with rock salt and pepper powder.   The explicit design goal is to inflict pain without great risk of lethal tissue damage, and without the risk of a projectile with enough kinetic energy to be able to pass through standard gysum board home walls and (potentially) harm my neighbors.  This is an escalation of force method, since (should my invader not get the idea) later shells in the line up do include harder and heaver projectiles.  A 12 gauge shotgun is very versitile.

Wow.. Now at least you presented logical explanations for simple questions.

I am glad for your choices and for your knowledge of firearms.

Well done.

Or you are just mocking me?

[myrkul]

To understand the pro-gun control position, imagine that everyone is carrying around an armed, ready to blow, rain-triggered nuclear explosive strapped to their hip. That should get you close to the level of fear.

Is that your dream?

You cannot be this stupid and still dress yourself in the morning. This was intended to illustrate to a rational person the level of fear which you live in that someone, somewhere, owns a pistol.

...hazek made the type of comment the OP created the thread to ridicule in the first place.

And did so to answer the question posed in the title. See the top part of this post for further evidence of Hazek's position, that the gun control nuts are not just the most stupid participants in the debate (or even just the only stupid participants) but are actually insane.

[hazek]

I was referring to the fact that hazek was not adding anything new to the debate, and he was doing it in a rude and shouty manner. Do you honestly think that sort of post helps anyone understand either point of view?

Not really, but it wasn't meant to add anything new, or really explain anything to anyone. It was ridicule, pure and simple. ...

Of course it was. And this thread is about poking fun at emotional slanging matches that don't add anything useful to the debate. Don't misconstrue my comment as being pro gun control, it was solely that hazek made the type of comment the OP created the thread to ridicule in the first place.

Unless it was a piss-take and hazek is actually pro gun control?

There is no debate because one side doesn't have a leg to stand on. That was my point. There is nothing to understand here except that one side sees the reality for what it is and acts accordingly and the other side doesn't and instead clings on to some sort of a fantasy and acts irrationally and I call that the most stupid thing one can possibly do.

I never said the pro gun side on the other hand isn't stupid. No the vast majority of them are stupid too because they let themselves being goaded into arguing with irrational people instead of just standing their ground and may the irrational do whatever.

Eventually that is what it will come down to. Either the pro gun stand their ground and defend their position even if it means by any means necessary or the irrational side will win and force the pro gun side to give up their weapons. There's no other way to resolve a dispute with irrational people, cause they're irrational. You defend yourself against them or they win.

[FirstAscent]

To understand the pro-gun control position, imagine that everyone is carrying around an armed, ready to blow, rain-triggered nuclear explosive strapped to their hip. That should get you close to the level of fear.

Is that your dream?

You cannot be this stupid and still dress yourself in the morning. This was intended to illustrate to a rational person the level of fear which you live in that someone, somewhere, owns a pistol.

We have it on record in this forum (unless you go delete your posts) that you indeed favor an AnCap society in which everyone may keep nuclear bombs with zero regulation.

[myrkul]

To understand the pro-gun control position, imagine that everyone is carrying around an armed, ready to blow, rain-triggered nuclear explosive strapped to their hip. That should get you close to the level of fear.

Is that your dream?

You cannot be this stupid and still dress yourself in the morning. This was intended to illustrate to a rational person the level of fear which you live in that someone, somewhere, owns a pistol.

We have it on record in this forum (unless you go delete your posts) that you indeed favor an AnCap society in which everyone may keep nuclear bombs with zero regulation.

Indeed I do. But that is not the same as the scenario I posited there, now is it?

[FirstAscent]

To understand the pro-gun control position, imagine that everyone is carrying around an armed, ready to blow, rain-triggered nuclear explosive strapped to their hip. That should get you close to the level of fear.

Is that your dream?

You cannot be this stupid and still dress yourself in the morning. This was intended to illustrate to a rational person the level of fear which you live in that someone, somewhere, owns a pistol.

We have it on record in this forum (unless you go delete your posts) that you indeed favor an AnCap society in which everyone may keep nuclear bombs with zero regulation.

Indeed I do. But that is not the same as the scenario I posited there, now is it?

In your society, one cannot tell if the nuclear bomb is armed and ready to blow anymore than if the gun is loaded and ready to fire.

[myrkul]

To understand the pro-gun control position, imagine that everyone is carrying around an armed, ready to blow, rain-triggered nuclear explosive strapped to their hip. That should get you close to the level of fear.

Is that your dream?

You cannot be this stupid and still dress yourself in the morning. This was intended to illustrate to a rational person the level of fear which you live in that someone, somewhere, owns a pistol.

We have it on record in this forum (unless you go delete your posts) that you indeed favor an AnCap society in which everyone may keep nuclear bombs with zero regulation.

Indeed I do. But that is not the same as the scenario I posited there, now is it?

In your society, one cannot tell if the nuclear bomb is armed and ready to blow anymore than if the gun is loaded and ready to fire.

Which is why a smart person always assumes that the gun is loaded. In fact, the "1st law" of gun safety is "The gun is always loaded." However, you can most definitely tell if a firearm is ready to fire, there's a very easy way: it's pointed at someone. So even a loaded pistol, in a holster, harms nobody.

Likewise, unless there are obvious telltales, one would assume that the bomb is armed. And I've repeatedly stated that your right to own something does not include the ability to threaten someone with it, and that includes a nuclear device. An armed nuke is equivalent to a drawn and pointed firearm, pointed at everyone in range. So while they would certainly have the right to own a nuclear weapon, they would not have the right to carry it around armed, no more than anyone has the right to walk around pointing a gun at people.

So you (and the other gun control wackos) are ruled by fear, and I am ruled by reason. And I'm tired of listening to wackos who are ruled by fear. MOΛΩN ΛABE.

[hazek]

And I'm tired of listening to wackos who are ruled by fear. MOΛΩN ΛABE.

Stop engaging with them then.


“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the differance”

― Mark Twain

[myrkul]

And I'm tired of listening to wackos who are ruled by fear. MOΛΩN ΛABE.

Stop engaging with them then.


“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference”

― Mark Twain

Good advice.

[bitster]

Its crazy to blame an inanimate object and not the individual. I also don't see why anyone would want to give up anymore rights to the state.

[FirstAscent]

Likewise, unless there are obvious telltales, one would assume that the bomb is armed. And I've repeatedly stated that your right to own something does not include the ability to threaten someone with it, and that includes a nuclear device. An armed nuke is equivalent to a drawn and pointed firearm, pointed at everyone in range. So while they would certainly have the right to own a nuclear weapon, they would not have the right to carry it around armed, no more than anyone has the right to walk around pointing a gun at people.

Could you be any dumber? Just by virtue of it being in their garage means they don't have to carry it around with them. It's already a threat in their garage.

[MoonShadow]

Yes, literally.  Do you know what the term 'literary license' means?  Is English your first language?

No, I do not know exactly. No, it is not my first language. Do you have a problem with that?

I don't care, really.  It does clarify some things, though.

Look up the term, "Literary license"; because it's a useful thing to know.  I'm not really interested in what you know, however.

This is your premise: 'I don't believe that is generally true.  It's certainly not true for myself.  I've never felt unsafe, before or after owning firearms. All my firearms spend the vast majority of their time locked in a rather large safe, because they are valuable. The rest of the time, they are shooting at paper. I don't hunt, myself.(...) and the rifle is the king of personal weapons.  I'm a sheepdog among a flock of sheep, and I'm fully aware of that.'

That was not a premise, that was an expression of my own opinions and experience.  I offered no argument and no premise.

Get it over!

I'm pretty sure that might be physically impossible within context.

Again, is English your first languge? Perhaps this is simply a misunderstanding?

Ad hominem is your preferred logical fallacy? There was not a misunderstanding.

It wasn't an ad hominem, it was an honest question; and it is now pretty apparent that there has been many misunderstandings, which persist.

No.  You made an observation for which you believe I were justifying my intent.  I have already explained your error of observation.  I have made zero attempt to justify my firearms ownership.  Again, I do not require your consent.

You indeed made an attempt to justify your firearm ownership: 'The military culture was not for me either, but I do enjoy shooting, and also understand that the judicious use of force is a cornerstone of civilization; and the rifle is the king of personal weapons. I'm a sheepdog among a flock of sheep, and I'm fully aware of that. Many of those here that defend the personal ownership of weaponry are also sheepdogs.'

That was not an attempt to justify my firearms ownership.  I wouldn't consider recreational shooting to be a rational justification to possess a (presumed by others) dangerous tool.  I wouldn't consider personal entertainment an acceptable cause for a untrained and unlicensed person to make and store fireworks in an old wood shed next to a city park.  Even professionally sometimes blow themselves up.  There would have to be a different, overriding reason to posses a firearm than simply "it's fun to shoot".  Fortunately, there is, and I've presented data to support that concept.  A neighbor would require my consent to start packing dynamite next to where my kids play, he would not require my consent to own a firearm.  If he started using my fence as a target support, however, we'd have words over that.

The majority of them, yes.  And yet, the vast majority of them are never employed in that purpose.  At least not in this country.  Punching holes in paper is, by a wide margin, the most widely intended purpose of those who buy them.  This is particularly true with regard to rimfire caliber firearms, many of which are specifically designed to maximize their effectiveness for this particular purpose.  All you have to do to find those is google 'target pistol' or 'target rifle' and you will immediately notice that they have features that make them particularly poor choices for self-defense or hunting.

This alone puts the lie to your line of thought.

Once again, I didn't present a premise.  You are projecting.  You seem to believe that you are engaged in a debate.  You are not.  I do not require your approval.

This is a forum, do you know that? There is a debate going on here.

There are many debates going on around this forum, but not in this thread.

At no moment I demanded you to present any justification to approve your right to own a firearm. You presented yourself a justification why you own a firearm and I made an observation of your premises.

Once again, I presented no arguments, and offered no premises.  Whatever observations you believe yourself to have made were based upon erroneous assumptions.  We are not having a debate.  There is nothing here to debate. 

Oh, you are in the debate, but I am not? So the "sheepdog" metaphor is just a joke?

I'm not the one who was mocking you.  You are not in a debate with anyone in this thread.  No one really cares what your position is.  And the sheepdog metaphor was not a joke, it was a metaphor. 

I still have the right to criticize your actions and arguments in this forum. Do you have a problem with that?

If I did, you wouldn't be speaking.  Notice the 'global moderator' tag to the left.  I just find it sad that, even after pointing out to you that you are not actually engaging in a debate with anyone, you assume that I'm making an argument.

An article with self-prediction elements... How pathetic. I should write one of these one day and then use in a debates here:

Go ahead.  I might even read it, but probably not.

By the way, do not think the entire existence of the article is valid to support your analogy. You did not even bothered to present the relevant quotes.

Why do you think that is?

http://a-human-right.com/

You have the right, but not the ability.  What you don't understand that your government does not grant you rights; it can either respect them and provide a legal structure that standardizes the social rules, or refuse to honor your rights and deny any practical utilization of your rights.  I live in the former, you live in the latter.

There is no such thing of 'practical utilization of your rights'.

I do not require your approval to honor rights which you pretend I have. You are not in a position to dictate what rights I have.

No, I'm not.  Neither are you, nor anyone else.  That's an irony that is not lost on myself, but I'm fairly certain you have no idea what I just said.

You are comfortable with it because you have been conditioned to believe that you are safe and protected by the uniformed sheepdogs.  This is understandable.

I said: 'I am comfortable with this lack of right because it is not just applied over me.'

So from this premise, you made a whole straw man argument.

Wait, do you actually know what it means to "make an argument"?

How funny you are!

I still have the right of self-defense and I voluntary agree with society that men and women in uniforms can protect me.

There is nothing voluntary about submitting to coercion.  And the first eight words and the rest of that sentence are a logical contradiction.

You know what is really funny?

Something lost in translation?

Sometimes, othertimes it was not.   You speak of a topic for which you have already admitted you have no first hand knowledge.

Well, I did not admitted that. Moreover, I still can argue with basic knowledge about a subject.

You don't have a basic knowledge on the subject.

That varies significantly. The majority of my own firearms are rimfires, so they would be particulary ineffective if self-defense was their primary design consideration.  Excellent at small game hunting, though.  A rabbit doesn't leave much meat if you use a caliber actually intended for self-defense levels of energy.

If you are trying to ask if I have considered "less lethal" weaponry for self-defense, then the answer is yes.  I actually have such weapons, including but not limited to, a 12 gauge shotgun that is designed to fire a shorter than normal shotgun shell, packed with rock salt and pepper powder.   The explicit design goal is to inflict pain without great risk of lethal tissue damage, and without the risk of a projectile with enough kinetic energy to be able to pass through standard gysum board home walls and (potentially) harm my neighbors.  This is an escalation of force method, since (should my invader not get the idea) later shells in the line up do include harder and heaver projectiles.  A 12 gauge shotgun is very versitile.

Wow.. Now at least you presented logical explanations for simple questions.

I am glad for your choices and for your knowledge of firearms.

Well done.

Or you are just mocking me?

Both, but not at the same time.

[myrkul]

Yes, literally.  Do you know what the term 'literary license' means?  Is English your first language?

No, I do not know exactly. No, it is not my first language. Do you have a problem with that?

I don't care, really.  It does clarify some things, though.

I discovered that he was not a native speaker of English months ago, and concluded that due to his lack of fluency in the English language, and my complete lack of knowledge of Portuguese, we would be unable to have a cogent conversation. I believe, at the time, you called me out for an ad hominem attack based on that observation.

It was in the middle of our "debate" regarding child-rearing methods, so I suppose it can be forgiven that you would object to the message based on the messenger.

[MoonShadow]

Yes, literally.  Do you know what the term 'literary license' means?  Is English your first language?

No, I do not know exactly. No, it is not my first language. Do you have a problem with that?

I don't care, really.  It does clarify some things, though.

I discovered that he was not a native speaker of English months ago, and concluded that due to his lack of fluency in the English language, and my complete lack of knowledge of Portuguese, we would be unable to have a cogent conversation. I believe, at the time, you called me out for an ad hominem attack based on that observation.

It was in the middle of our "debate" regarding child-rearing methods, so I suppose it can be forgiven that you would object to the message based on the messenger.

<sigh> My apologies if I was incorrect.