Which is the greater threat?

[Kelzie]

What ELSE might he decide to do?

Get up and dance the cha cha?

I like this thread. It's fun.

 

[Kandahar]

Clay Aiken. Hands down the biggest threat to America since the U.S.S.R.

Clay Aiken is clearly a bigger threat than the USSR ever was. A bigger threat than Hitler too.

 

[Goobieman]

If YOU were as rational and logical as you think you are, you wouldn't have bothered to cite the sexuality and HIV status of this person if you didn't expect people to consider those things. Any rational person would assume that the information you provided was somehow relevant to your question.

Given the situation, it CAN'T be relevant.

Its AMAZING what happens to (self-described) intelligent, rational people when the word "homosexual" is included into a hypthetical -- their world turns all upside-down. You (collectively) didn't THINK, you REACTED.

I'd still rather be in the room with the homosexual than the gun (assuming this isn't a long-term prison sentence). I'd be a lot more worried that I'd accidentally set the gun off and kill myself, than that this person was going to randomly attack me.

OK, that's completely irrational.
The gun will sit there until the end of time and will never do anything. Ever.
You're arguing that you're a bigger threat to yourself than some randonly chosed individual.

 

[Willow]

Oh please
Michael Bolton is so much worse then Clay Aiken.
Pat Boone is odd but at least has a sense of humour and I will never admit it again but I have Moody River on my Ipod. :3oops: :3oops:


You guys aren't thinking, let me tell you not as a liberal or conservative but as a woman what I would do.
Pick up gun
Shoot lock off
Take sick guy to hospital.
I win!! Women rule.:mrgreen:

 

[Adrian]

The options confuse me. What's the point of the third option? I take the gun and use it to defend myself against...a)the gun? I'm already holding the gun (and besides, that's already the first option). b)the homosexual/lesbian? That's what the second option is already there for. c)Both? That just makes no sense. The third option is redundant. Who (or what) I am supposed to defend myself against aside from the first two options?

 

[Adrian]

Oh please
Michael Bolton is so much worse then Clay Aiken.

Um, excuse me, but if memory serves, Michael Bolton won a grammy. Would you please tell the members of this forum how many grammies you've won? What? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. "None" you say? Exactly. Thanks and buh bye.

 

[doughgirl]

:rofl I would go pick up the gun..........to use agaisnt the jerk who locked me in the room.

 

[Goobieman]

The third option is redundant. Who (or what) I am supposed to defend myself against aside from the first two options?

You're saying that thr 3rd option necessitates that the homosexual is the greater threat - because who would yoube defending yourself from, if not the homosexual. Right?

Hmm. That was pretty clever of me, eh? :mrgreen:

 

[Adrian]

Take sick guy to hospital.

Where...what? He'll learn that he has AIDS? I'm assuming he knows that already.

 

[Adrian]

You're saying that thr 3rd option necessitates that the homosexual is the greater threat - because who would yoube defending yourself from, if not the homosexual. Right?

Hmm. That was pretty clever of me, eh? :mrgreen:

Actually, yes, it kind of was.

 

[jallman]

Jallman -- bless his overtaxed little mind -- goies right for the poersonal attacks agianst me, and doesnt answer the question.

What more do you expect, O Genius. This whole thread was retarded from the start, it has nothing to do with anything of relevance, and you have just said yourself it was bait to set you up to attack liberals' rationality and intelligence. When you decide to say something of importance and depth, then I might decide to give one of your little priss fits a reasonable response. :mrgreen:

By the way...spell check. Learn to love it...

 

[Goobieman]

Actually, yes, it kind of was.

I wonder if those that voted for option #3 (especially dragonslayer) thought that far.

 

[Kandahar]

Given the situation, it CAN'T be relevant.

Why not? Why did you include information irrelevant to the discussion, if you didn't want us to consider it?

Its AMAZING what happens to (self-described) intelligent, rational people when the word "homosexual" is included into a hypthetical -- their world turns all upside-down. You (collectively) didn't THINK, you REACTED.

I'd be just as bewildered if you included any other morally-neutral label. Which is a bigger threat, an elementary school teacher or a gun? Which is a bigger threat, a dogcatcher or a gun? Which is a bigger threat, a sports buff or a gun? Which is a bigger threat, a mother of two or a gun?

OK, that's completely irrational.
The gun will sit there until the end of time and will never do anything. Ever.

Ya, but I won't sit there until the end of time and not do anything.

You're arguing that you're a bigger threat to yourself than some randonly chosed individual.

That's probably true. I would assume that it is for most people.

 

[Goobieman]

What more do you expect, O Genius.

For self-described intelligent, rational, reasonable, logical people to look at the scenario and come up with an intelligent, rational, reasonable and logical response.

You (specifically and collectively) failed miserably.

This whole thread was retarded from the start, it has nothing to do with anything of relevance,

Sure it does. It asks:
"Are guns, as inanimite objects, in and of themselves, a threat to anyone?"
That's not a relevant political issue?

and you have just said yourself it was bait to set you up to attack liberals' rationality and intelligence.

And you did not fail to deliver.
Who is to blame for that?

When you decide to say something of importance and depth, then I might decide to give one of your little priss fits a reasonable response. :mrgreen:

I can see you're upset. I donlt blame you.
But... it's not MY fault you arent as reasonable and rational as you think you are, so dont get mad at ME.

By the way...spell check. Learn to love it...

Ah - a spell Nazi.
The last refuge for those with nothing to say.

 

[Willow]

Where...what? He'll learn that he has AIDS? I'm assuming he knows that already.

If he's HIV, then he shouldn't be stressed out, that can damage his health even more so of course he needs to get checked out and make sure he's ok.

I don't have any Grammies but I have ears, two of them in fact, and I loathe Michael Bolton. He's wishy washy, mind you Clay Aiken is an incredibly boring Manilow wannabe. Hmmm Adrian you may have changed my mind..maybe...

Hmm. That was pretty clever of me, eh?

No.

 

[jallman]

[quote[By the way...spell check. Learn to love it...
Ah - a spell Nazi.
The last refuge for those with nothing to say.

As I said, there isn't much response to this, your latest exercise in baiting. Transparency doesn't leave much room for discussion. It's just more fun to poke at you...at least then you serve some amusing purpose. :2wave:

 

[Goobieman]

Why not? Why did you include information irrelevant to the discussion, if you didn't want us to consider it?

Tell me how and why your asnwer would differ if I had left that information out.
If your asnwer is the same, then how does that information matter?

I'd be just as bewildered if you included any other morally-neutral label. Which is a bigger threat, an elementary school teacher or a gun? Which is a bigger threat, a dogcatcher or a gun? Which is a bigger threat, a sports buff or a gun? Which is a bigger threat, a mother of two or a gun?

How would the answer differ?
It wouldn't?
So, why does it matter?

Ya, but I won't sit there until the end of time and not do anything.

That doesnt make the gun any more of a threat.

That's probably true. I would assume that it is for most people.

Why would you say that?
Dunno about you, but I -never- worry that I might do something to harm myself.

 

[Adrian]

No.

No, technically, it was. He set up the homosexual/lesbian label as a red herring, and just to really pile on the emotional hot-button value, threw on the AIDS qualifier. And everyone took the bait.

You don't have to be gay, gay-sympathetic or as rabidly homophobic as Fred Phelps in order to understand that the only relevant factor is that the homosexual is a human being, and therefore poses more of a risk than an inanimate object that could only be dangerous in the hands of a human being. I voted for the homosexual/lesbian.

 

[Kandahar]

Tell me how and why your asnwer would differ if I had left that information out.
If your asnwer is the same, then how does that information matter?


How would the answer differ?
It wouldn't?
So, why does it matter?

Usually people only include RELEVANT information in hypotheticals. It's implied that it is somehow important information.

That doesnt make the gun any more of a threat.

Sure it does. I might get bored and take the gun out. Or I might just bump it and it accidentally goes off.

Why would you say that?
Dunno about you, but I -never- worry that I might do something to harm myself.

Do you ever worry about homosexuals attacking you?

 

[jallman]

No, technically, it was. He set up the homosexual/lesbian label as a red herring, and just to really pile on the emotional hot-button value, threw on the AIDS qualifier. And everyone took the bait.

You don't have to be gay, gay-sympathetic or as rabidly homophobic as Fred Phelps in order to understand that the only relevant factor is that the homosexual is a human being, and therefore poses more of a risk than an inanimate object that could only be dangerous in the hands of a human being. I voted for the homosexual/lesbian.

I still don't see the point at all. Was there even really a point? Anyone with half a brain cell still firing knows that an inanimate object is not a threat until it is in the hands of a human being. No big revelation there...

 

[Goobieman]

As I said, there isn't much response to this....

You're right, really -- you failed to THINK, and it was exposed for all to see.

 

[jallman]

You're right, really -- you failed to THINK, and it was exposed for all to see.

No, I think quite a lot. I think this thread is retarded and you are more transparent than an open window.

Actually...no, I don't think that...I know it.

Inspire something worth thinking about and you won't be the subject of ridicule.

 

[Goobieman]

I still don't see the point at all. Was there even really a point? Anyone with half a brain cell still firing knows that an inanimate object is not a threat until it is in the hands of a human being. No big revelation there...

So... why didn't you just choose "the homosexual" and leave it at that instead of going off on your diatribe of insults?

Why have you STILL not chosen "the homosexual"?

 

[jallman]

So... why didn't you just choose "the homosexual" and leave it at that instead of going off on your diatribe of insults?

Why have you STILL not chosen "the homosexual"?

Why are you so concerned with my choosing a given? You aren't leading anyone to any great epiphany here...unless you had some epiphany about all this and in that case...well...heheheheehe

 

[Adrian]

I still don't see the point at all. Was there even really a point? Anyone with half a brain cell still firing knows that an inanimate object is not a threat until it is in the hands of a human being. No big revelation there...

I have no way of knowing if Goobieman is a homophobe or not, or if he was deliberately trolling. But if he was either of those, a surefire way of taking all the fun out of it for him would have been to remove the emotion out of the subject and vote the homosexual/lesbian.

It's sort of like the way the Iranians held a holocaust humor contest, and the Israelis, rather than getting all wound up, held their own holocaust cartoon contest. After that, it's just no fun for the other guy.

It also would have deprived Goobieman of his belief that liberals "just don't think."