[W: 542] Non gun owners have smaller members according to this study?

[soylentgreen]

The part that agrees with both of us, is that NZ allows the use of lethal force. By law. As you have been repeatedly shown.

You really have nothing to offer but cherry picking. You ignore the part I quoted just to keep repeating that you did not bother to read the link because your mind was already made up.

 

[RF667799]

No, it does not unless you want to cherry pick out only the part that agrees with you and ignore the rest.

You're now claiming that lethal force is not allowed to be used in New Zealand?

Then why did you write this: Of course we allow for lethal defense

 

[rahl]

How can it be a goal post shift when your entire argument is that nz has the same lethal defense as a usa.

That’s a strawman now. I simply pointed out that by law, both NZ and the US allow the use of lethal force in self defense.

Yours is a silly argument then. Of course we allow for lethal defense. That in no way means we have the same stupidity over the right to kill as america does.

Strawman.

 

[rahl]

You really have nothing to offer but cherry picking.

It’s black letter law lol.

You ignore the part I quoted just to keep repeating that you did not bother to read the link because your mind was already made up.

The part you quoted is not relevant to anything I’ve stated. Which is, it is an objective legal fact that NZ, and the US, allow the use of lethal force in self defense.

 

[Rich2018]

You really have nothing to offer but cherry picking. You ignore the part I quoted just to keep repeating that you did not bother to read the link because your mind was already made up.

And a pantomime debating style:

"Oh no it isn't...."

 

[Metric Mouse]

Strange that you have such an infatuation with penises that you share publicly.

Right?

It's strange that non gun owners are so upset that they are not as happy with their size as gun owners. Like... why do they care?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Satisfaction with the size is different than actual size.
Perhaps those with the guns feel more manly despite having a small member, getting bigger guns if they have smaller members.
While non gun owners don't have that masculinity boost

No. The study shows that it is gun control advocates who have tiny genitalia.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

And one warning only now, as I have already pointed out your posts are far to long. Especially when they are filled with comments that unnecessary, and that you now have to take up two posts to say what could have been said in one short sentence. If you are attempting to make your posts tedious with the hope that i will up bothering. It's working.

I am merely responding to your untrue statements. If you want to read shorter posts, don't make so many untrue claims.

There is your attempt to confuse . No one has said freedom is a lie.

That is incorrect. You said it in the post that I was responding to.

Only that you what you call freedom is really only fear of not having a gun.

This statement is untrue as well.

Free people have the right to keep and bear arms.

But I understand, better to misinterpret than actually argue the point.

Directly pointing out that your claims are untrue counts as arguing the point.

Bullshit. Your politicians are bought and paid for. The only way to become a president these days is if you have the backing of the wealthy.

That is incorrect. Reality is not BS. Our government is superior to all other governments due to our Bill of Rights.

It is when corrupt judges allow their personal politics to decide what is law.

Conservative judges do not do such things.

Again another example of muddy the water. No one has said that there is no right to self defense. Only that it is not natural because a right is a concept created by people not nature.

Perhaps an attempt by you to muddy the water. The only thing I did was counter your untrue claim about there being no natural rights.

Except in america where you do have a right to kill.

America has the same natural right to self defense that New Zealand has.

True, However americans have the right to use lethal force where as elsewhere they do not.

That is incorrect. New Zealand has the same natural right to self defense that America has.

And where are rights specifically for women written in the constitution? Or is it the case that with such a badly written document one can only infer such rights.

The same place that all rights are written. Women are part of the people.

Which it will never be changed because as you once said you along with every other superstitious american worship what exists. People rarely change what they worship.

Nonsense. The Constitution can be changed if the people want it.

If you don't have the votes to amend the Constitution then democracy has spoken and that is the result.

Bullshit. They understand the concept but do not rely on it as americans do.

Then their governments are illegitimate.

No it is not. Please quote the legal term.

Yes it is.

What Are Natural Rights? The Concept and Key Examples

Interested in what are natural rights? Explore what exactly these rights are through the definition and examples, and how they differ from human rights.

www.yourdictionary.com

Natural rights and legal rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, as a philosophy, not as law.

Then their governments are illegitimate.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Absolute nonsense as there are ways to defend yourself that does not require a gun.. Americans just choose convenience over morality.
Yet you alone as a country choose lethal self defense.

That is incorrect. New Zealand has the same natural right to self defense that the US has. And that includes using guns.

No one is arguing against the right to self defense only the right to kill and then claim self defense.

Self defense in New Zealand has the same possibility of a lethal outcome that it does in the US.

True, It is the manner in which they debate that is dishonest.

That is incorrect. All they do is point out that you are wrong. Nothing dishonest about that.

So long as your not black, poor or a woman. If you are a land owning white man then yes.

You are a couple centuries out of date. We had a big war some time back. It changed a few things.

Yes, and hindsight tells us that was one big ****ing mistake.

I do not agree that abolishing slavery was a mistake.

Quoting previous posts for context.

nor do I.

You changed your mind pretty quickly. A little while ago you said that abolishing slavery was a huge mistake.

An irrelevant point but probably the only one you have.

That is incorrect. My disagreement with your opinion of slavery is directly relevant to your opinion of slavery.

Of course there is. The fear of missing out on having a gun.

That is incorrect. Americans, being free, have no such fear.

Again either trying to muddy the water or simply nit understanding what you read. Did not say people did not have a right to arms. Did say americans fear not having a gun.

As before, this is your own attempt to muddy the water. I didn't accuse you of saying there is no right to keep and bear arms. I merely pointed out that your claim about fear is untrue.

Deal with what is said not what you want to be said.

I always deal with what is said. That is why I successfully correct all your untrue claims.

Freedom is not dependent on your ability to kill. It always depends only on your ability to participate in politics.

Maybe so. But the fact remains. Free people have the right to keep and bear arms.

Trying to pretend I must hate america is called a ad hom attack.

No it isn't.

Only in america does the right to kill get linked with self defense. You can ignore and twist that as you usually do but that fact will not go away.

That is incorrect. The rest of the world has the same natural right to self defense that America has.

I have made it quite clear where you have lied. Deal with it instead of being dishonest about it.

He has neither lied nor been dishonest.

Of course there is a right to kill in america as you have a right to lethal force. even when it is not necessary. Not to mention a belief in a right to behave as vigilantes.

That is incorrect. Such killing is only allowed as a by-product of self defense.

What troubles me is your cherry picking. Do you actually plan to ignore the comments for ever.

Pointing out that your comments are untrue is hardly ignoring them.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

I have not ignored it. i have repeatedly stated that many countries including mine have a right to self defense. Including the use of lethal force. What america has though is the right to kill.

That is incorrect. We only have the same natural right to self defense that everyone else has.

But you will never deal with that problem because your only purpose on these threads is to stall any serious conversation about americas attitude with guns problem. Just as you are stalling now by cherry picking.

The nice thing about imaginary problems is, there is no actual need to deal with them.

Of course it is because only in america do you have a right to kill.

That is incorrect. There is no such right in America. We merely have the same natural self defense rights that the rest of the world has.

Where America is different is the Second Amendment, which ensures that we will always be free.

As I said, he is not here to debate with any honesty. His only concern is to obfuscate in the hope he can stall any conversations and thus halt any changes.

So far none of the obfuscation has been coming from his posts.

It really is a waste of anyone time to deal with him. But on the other hand he is not a challenge just an amusement. Someone easily painted into a corner where he has no choice but to do his dishonest debate tactics such as the cherry picking he is trying at the moment.
he is good for a few posts or until he bores me , that is all.

No such dishonesty. Everything that he has said is true.

The trouble with the pro gun crowd in america, and you two do exemplify this, is arrogance. They are so sure they know the answers that they never bother to ask the right questions. Which also leads to ignorance. They don't bother to learn because they think you already know it all.

Well we are the ones who are actually posting correct statements.

I am going to admit now that I have been deliberately misdirecting you. And neither of you apparently know enough about your own laws to pick that up.

You didn't notice all the posts correcting all your untrue claims?

Repeatedly I have asked where in the constitution are the words self defense written. And of course get no reply because the words are not written there. And you two lack the imagination needed to wonder where does the right come from. Had you educated yourself about the legal situation of self defense then you would have known that, but obviously you do not.

I'm pretty sure that I corrected you. And I doubt that I was the only one.

So now I will tell you where your right actually comes from and also show you why you are incorrect about your lame, false and uneducated opinion that nz is the same.
The right to self defense is common law in america not constitutional law. It is called the castle doctrine. And please do not try and pretend you knew this otherwise you would have gloated over my asking for it the constitution. I made you look foolish and you cannot deny it.

No. When you make untrue claims, it is not other people who look foolish.

And why would we gloat over that particular untrue claim from you? It is just one in an endless stream of untrue claims that you keep making.

If we were going to gloat over every untrue claim that you post, we'd burst from gloat overload.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

No. The study shows that it is gun control advocates who have tiny genitalia.

No it shows satisfaction with penis size not actual penis size.

A gun owner might be satisfied with a penis of 3 inches while one who doesn't have a gun might be dissatisfied with a penis of 7 inches

 

[Toggle Almendro]

No it shows satisfaction with penis size not actual penis size.
A gun owner might be satisfied with a penis of 3 inches while one who doesn't have a gun might be dissatisfied with a penis of 7 inches

That is wishful thinking. In reality anyone is dissatisfied with tiny genitalia. Gun control advocates are dissatisfied because they are the ones who have tiny genitalia.

But if you want to investigate further, go ahead and commission a scientific study of why gun control advocates are dissatisfied with the size of their genitalia. I'm sure a second study will be just as entertaining as this first one.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

That is wishful thinking. In reality anyone is dissatisfied with tiny genitalia. Gun control advocates are dissatisfied because they are the ones who have tiny genitalia.

But if you want to investigate further, go ahead and commission a scientific study of why gun control advocates are dissatisfied with the size of their genitalia. I'm sure a second study will be just as entertaining as this first one.

Not wishful thinking

The article clearly states satisfaction with size, not actual size.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Not wishful thinking
The article clearly states satisfaction with size, not actual size.

The hope that "satisfaction with size doesn't correlate with size" is wishful thinking.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The hope that "satisfaction with size doesn't correlate with size" is wishful thinking.

It doesnt. How many fat people are satisfied with how they look? Quite a few in the US given how many are obese.

Yet there are many extremely fit people that are still not happy with how they loom.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

It doesnt. How many fat people are satisfied with how they look? Quite a few in the US given how many are obese.
Yet there are many extremely fit people that are still not happy with how they look.

More wishful thinking. Gun owners are content for good reason.

Gun control advocates are discontent for good reason.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

More wishful thinking. Gun owners are content for good reason.

Gun control advocates are discontent for good reason.

They have big guns to compensate for small members.

It make them feel manly despite being weak

 

[Toggle Almendro]

They have big guns to compensate for small members.
It make them feel manly despite being weak

That is incorrect. Science has proven that it is gun control advocates who have tiny genitalia.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

That is incorrect. Science has proven that it is gun control advocates who have tiny genitalia.

No it has not, it states they are more satisfied with their tiny members as they have guns to compensate

 

[Toggle Almendro]

No it has not, it states they are more satisfied with their tiny members as they have guns to compensate

That is incorrect. The scientists said nothing of the sort. That's just wishful thinking on your part.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

That is incorrect. The scientists said nothing of the sort. That's just wishful thinking on your part.

It is exactly what the study says

Gun owners are more satisfied, not that they are larger.

Many overweight people are satisfied with how they look as well

 

[Toggle Almendro]

It is exactly what the study says

No it isn't. That's your wishful thinking.

Gun owners are more satisfied, not that they are larger.

People who are satisfied, are satisfied because they have good reason to be satisfied.

Many overweight people are satisfied with how they look as well

Nonsense.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

No it isn't. That's your wishful thinking.



People who are satisfied, are satisfied because they have good reason to be satisfied.



Nonsense.

We find that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises are less likely to personally own guns across outcomes, including any gun ownership, military-style rifle ownership, and total number of guns owned.

Satisfaction and actual size do not always correlate.

As for fat people in the US. The very large number of obese people in the US who do not exercise, or change their diet indicate they are happy with how they look. While there are a large number of fit people who are not happy with how they look despite being fit and good looking. They often end up taking PEDs to get bigger or more ripped.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Satisfaction and actual size do not always correlate.

But they usually do.

As for fat people in the US. The very large number of obese people in the US who do not exercise, or change their diet indicate they are happy with how they look.

No. It is because they are lazy gluttons who like to eat.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

But they usually do.



No. It is because they are lazy gluttons who like to eat.

Satisfied with how they look.

Some people might be Satisfied with 4 inches others unhappy with 8