[ASLplease]

Can you disagree in a more tactful way?

perhaps you could use 'I' statements more often.

For example. instead of saying 'you make me worry when you drive drunk', you might want to say ' When you drive drunk,I worry'

Gunnair Gunnair:

ASLplease ASLplease:

andyt andyt:

As people have pointed out, they were running away, no threat to anyone.

The planes - that dropped bombs on Hiroshima - flew away, no threat to anyone.

Now I happen to support their(the planes) actions, but I dont support the idea that anyone, anywhere, has the right to turn tail and once they are 'no threat' they should not be shot at.

Can I refer you to the Canadian Action Party thread? You and Charisma should be able to converse in 'idiot' for quite some time.

[Gunnair]

"ASLplease" wrote:

$1:

Can you disagree in a more tactful way?

No.

I find these days, that my level of tact seems to be directly proportioned to the degree of intelligence in the post I'm responding to.

Sorry.

[ASLplease]

Gunnair Gunnair:

"ASLplease" wrote:

$1:

Can you disagree in a more tactful way?

No.

I find these days, that my level of tact seems to be directly proportioned to the degree of intelligence in the post I'm responding to.

Sorry.

That is too bad.

Your affliction has a latin name:Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person).

This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "You are an idiot"), but this is actually not that common. A more common manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a person based on incorrect or maligned information -- for example, responding to a quotation from me on this thread by saying, "We all know how much of an idiot you are on other threads, so why should we believe anything you say?"

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But, the saddest thing about it, is it reveals a problem in a person's personality, ie its not enough to share ideas with others, you must treat differences in opinion as something to scoff at or ridicule, thereby, impairing your ability to learn from or appreciate other's life experiences.

[Gunnair]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Gunnair Gunnair:

"ASLplease" wrote:

$1:

Can you disagree in a more tactful way?

No.

I find these days, that my level of tact seems to be directly proportioned to the degree of intelligence in the post I'm responding to.

Sorry.

That is too bad.

Your affliction has a latin name:Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person).

This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "You are an idiot"), but this is actually not that common. A more common manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a person based on incorrect or maligned information -- for example, responding to a quotation from me on this thread by saying, "We all know how much of an idiot you are on other threads, so why should we believe anything you say?"

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But, the saddest thing about it, is it reveals a problem in a person's personality, ie its not enough to share ideas with others, you must treat differences in opinion as something to scoff at or ridicule, thereby, impairing your ability to learn from or appreciate other's life experiences.

Wow, you're a shrink?

Anyway, man up, sport. I make my observations pointed while you hide behind broad generalizations and offer passive aggressive smarm.

Who has the problem?

Now, trying to move back to the topic, do you believe the guy was right in shooting at a fleeing suspect who had tried unsuccessfully to steal his quad?

[Yogi]

Traditional 'justice' has had minimal effect with regard to this problem. On the other hand, the results of 'redneck justice' speak for themselves!

A similar incident occurred on March 26, 2009, when a man was shot and beaten near Tees, 40 km northeast of Red Deer, while trying to flee on an ATV stolen from farmer’s yard.




“Anyone who is shot is lucky to be alive,” Howse said.

The quad that the alleged victim had been riding on had been reported stolen on Sunday from the Brazeau Dam area. A second quad found abandoned nearby had also been reported stolen from Rocky Mountain House on May 5. Police are expecting to lay criminal charges in connection with these matters.

A stolen dirt bike was also found in the same vicinity on Tuesday.

Rocky Mountain House RCMP say they are dealing with an epidemic of all-terrain vehicles being stolen within the town of Rocky, Clearwater County and the Brazeau Dam area over the past several years. In 2008, 140 of these thefts were reported in this region. With some arrests made, that number dropped to around 30 in 2009. Since February of this year, 25 thefts or attempted thefts have occurred, including 10 in May alone.

Police investigations have shown that numerous off-highway vehicles, damaged or completely written off, have been located on the O’Chiese First Nation reserve located less than 20 km from the Sunchild reserve.

[Gunnair]

Yogi Yogi:

Traditional 'justice' has had minimal effect with regard to this problem. On the other hand, the results of 'redneck justice' speak for themselves!

A similar incident occurred on March 26, 2009, when a man was shot and beaten near Tees, 40 km northeast of Red Deer, while trying to flee on an ATV stolen from farmer’s yard.




“Anyone who is shot is lucky to be alive,” Howse said.

The quad that the alleged victim had been riding on had been reported stolen on Sunday from the Brazeau Dam area. A second quad found abandoned nearby had also been reported stolen from Rocky Mountain House on May 5. Police are expecting to lay criminal charges in connection with these matters.

A stolen dirt bike was also found in the same vicinity on Tuesday.

Rocky Mountain House RCMP say they are dealing with an epidemic of all-terrain vehicles being stolen within the town of Rocky, Clearwater County and the Brazeau Dam area over the past several years. In 2008, 140 of these thefts were reported in this region. With some arrests made, that number dropped to around 30 in 2009. Since February of this year, 25 thefts or attempted thefts have occurred, including 10 in May alone.

Police investigations have shown that numerous off-highway vehicles, damaged or completely written off, have been located on the O’Chiese First Nation reserve located less than 20 km from the Sunchild reserve.

Would I be correct in assessing that your position is to fight illegal acts with illegal acts?

[Yogi]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Yogi Yogi:

Would I be correct in assessing that your position is to fight illegal acts with illegal acts?

If that's what it takes to gain control of a situation, then by all means yes!

Keep in mind though, that my position is, and always has been, as a reaction to an 'intrusion' I don't support a 'Deathwish I-II-III-IV " Let's get our guns and go out and clean up the 'hood" type mentality.
If the 'bad guys' aren't going to 'play by the rules' then I am more than willing to 'meet them on their level'.

[Gunnair]

Yogi Yogi:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Yogi Yogi:

Would I be correct in assessing that your position is to fight illegal acts with illegal acts?

If that's what it takes to gain control of a situation, then by all means yes!

Keep in mind though, that my position is, and always has been, as a reaction to an 'intrusion' I don't support a 'Deathwish I-II-III-IV " Let's get our guns and go out and clean up the 'hood" type mentality.
If the 'bad guys' aren't going to 'play by the rules' then I am more than willing to 'meet them on their level'.

You're better than them how? What you are doing is illegal - no different than them.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Gunnair Gunnair:

"ASLplease" wrote:

$1:

Can you disagree in a more tactful way?

No.

Besides....

[EyeBrock]

Minimum force to stop the offence.

It's a simple concept. The bad guy's actions dictate the level of force used and when that force's application stops.

Bad guy stops fighting, good guys stop hitting him.

That's called enforcement. What some of you guys are advocating is mob-rule and excessive force and not at all civilised.

[Yogi]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Would I be correct in assessing that your position is to fight illegal acts with illegal acts?

[/quote]

If that's what it takes to gain control of a situation, then by all means yes!

Keep in mind though, that my position is, and always has been, as a reaction to an 'intrusion' I don't support a 'Deathwish I-II-III-IV " Let's get our guns and go out and clean up the 'hood" type mentality.
If the 'bad guys' aren't going to 'play by the rules' then I am more than willing to 'meet them on their level'.[/quote]

You're better than them how? What you are doing is illegal - no different than them.[/quote]
******************************************
Not instigating the situation puts me 'above and beyond'. I'm 'mindin my own' up until that moment. Reacting to the situation that 'they' have set up.
At the very moment that another confronts me, with the intention of robbing me, or doing me harm, then they have just put a material value on their own life and well-being'.

They lose!

[Gunnair]

Yogi Yogi:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Would I be correct in assessing that your position is to fight illegal acts with illegal acts?

If that's what it takes to gain control of a situation, then by all means yes!

Keep in mind though, that my position is, and always has been, as a reaction to an 'intrusion' I don't support a 'Deathwish I-II-III-IV " Let's get our guns and go out and clean up the 'hood" type mentality.
If the 'bad guys' aren't going to 'play by the rules' then I am more than willing to 'meet them on their level'.[/quote]

You're better than them how? What you are doing is illegal - no different than them.[/quote]
******************************************
Not instigating the situation puts me 'above and beyond'. I'm 'mindin my own' up until that moment. Reacting to the situation that 'they' have set up.
At the very moment that another confronts me, with the intention of robbing me, or doing me harm, then they have just put a material value on their own life and well-being'.

They lose![/quote]

Sorry, but you have no moral highground. You are perpetrating an illegal act in response to an illegal act.

In the end, it is still an illegal act, and may in fact be more morally reprehensible with a greater consequence when you kill someone over a weedeater.

[EyeBrock]

$1:

Yogi Yogi:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Would I be correct in assessing that your position is to fight illegal acts with illegal acts?

If that's what it takes to gain control of a situation, then by all means yes!

Keep in mind though, that my position is, and always has been, as a reaction to an 'intrusion' I don't support a 'Deathwish I-II-III-IV " Let's get our guns and go out and clean up the 'hood" type mentality.
If the 'bad guys' aren't going to 'play by the rules' then I am more than willing to 'meet them on their level'.

You're better than them how? What you are doing is illegal - no different than them.[/quote]
******************************************
Not instigating the situation puts me 'above and beyond'. I'm 'mindin my own' up until that moment. Reacting to the situation that 'they' have set up.
At the very moment that another confronts me, with the intention of robbing me, or doing me harm, then they have just put a material value on their own life and well-being'.

They lose![/quote][/quote]

Mmm.

Well in Canada, it would be highly likely that your conduct and judgement would garner criminal charges.

It's not really a reasonable viewpoint and a jury would look at what is ‘reasonable’ and citizens using a level of force deemed by a jury of their peers as 'excessive' would be looking at a criminal conviction and possible jail.

[Yogi]

Yogi Yogi:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Would I be correct in assessing that your position is to fight illegal acts with illegal acts?

If that's what it takes to gain control of a situation, then by all means yes!

Keep in mind though, that my position is, and always has been, as a reaction to an 'intrusion' I don't support a 'Deathwish I-II-III-IV " Let's get our guns and go out and clean up the 'hood" type mentality.
If the 'bad guys' aren't going to 'play by the rules' then I am more than willing to 'meet them on their level'.[/quote]

You're better than them how? What you are doing is illegal - no different than them.[/quote]
******************************************
Not instigating the situation puts me 'above and beyond'. I'm 'mindin my own' up until that moment. Reacting to the situation that 'they' have set up.
At the very moment that another confronts me, with the intention of robbing me, or doing me harm, then they have just put a material value on their own life and well-being'.

They lose![/quote]

I guess if they put 'a price tag of a weedeater' on their life, then they have made a poor choice indeed.

[EyeBrock]

Yogi, are you just lookng for a fight or summat? You 'aint making a lot of sense on this subject.