RE: "Eeeek, an AR-15 !!!"
Where was the subject switched? I have been talking about people with guns
This is where:
Why would people need media influence to fear killing machines?
You didn't talk about people with guns, you said clearly People don't need the media to fear killing machines. You didn't say people WITH killing machines.
Your implication that I'm was only blaming guns is the strawman and is illogical since guns are a result of people.
Wrong, it doesn't matter if guns were the results of people, the only thing that matters is that you didn't talk about people, but only guns. When you went to switch the topic to People with Weapons from People Fearing Weapons, you did so to rhetorically answer that guns are scary regardless of personal experience to reinforce the fear.
There is no "my side". Your imbecilic opinion thinks that the media Glorifies Guns, when in fact the media doesn't do ANY such thing, and attacks guns wanton while being portrayed in crime and lawlessness 24/7. There are no Redeeming qualities of guns, like sportsmanship that is featured in the media, and not even anything that would pass for Glorifying.
Yeah you are saying the same thing:
media is not necessary for people to fear guns.
The conversation was never about People with guns, but people being afraid of killing machines. (because guns are used only for killing).
You are strawmaning me by repeatedly ascribing views I don't hold to my arguments as if I'm the one derailing the argument. "...the only thing that matters is that you didn't talk about people..." There's your strawman, stop this or there is no point in continuing as you are arguing against something that isn't my position at this point. "The conversation was never about People with guns, but people being afraid of killing machines." Okay, well I'm talking about people with guns and so is everyone else I've ever heard talking about this. You're the only one talking about people fearing objects. "There are no Redeeming qualities of guns, like sportsmanship that is featured in the media, and not even anything that would pass for Glorifying." This is your opinion, mine is the opposite, but that is irrelevant because I'm talking about guns, and you're derailing it by bringing up the media after failing to explain why it's necessary to fear guns.
So that is how you talk about people with guns? By mentioning that the media isn't necessary to fear killing machines?
Yes indeed: Not people With Guns.
I didn't have to explain that it's necessary to fear guns, I never held the thought that guns or any other killing machines, or any other things should be feared, it's an irrational fear, a fear of things that have no volition. You, on the other hand, brought up the subject by Rhetorically asking why people need to listen to the media to validate their fear of killing machines. (things should be feared). If you can explain what you meant by that statement or what the POINT of it was I'm all ears, until then your a strawman planting fellow accusing me of pointing out that you indeed didn't resolve the logic of "Why should people needed media influence to fear killing machines" which puts up the strawman after opening the discussion directly on THINGS by themselves "to fear killing machines" that a Man with an ax is scarry regardless if you had a previous experience or not, which has nothing to do with why people should fear killing machines or why they shouldn't, well it has nothing to do with fearing killing machiens but with fearing people, so in other words why make a point about people not needing the media to tell them to fear killing machines.
You went even further in this by attaching the imbecilic opinion that Glorifying something means the complete opposite of the definition for that verb, which is not MY opinion because I have no problem recognizing what glorifying is and what it isn't or confusing that with an opinion, however valid or substantial.
"You, on the other hand, brought up the subject by Rhetorically asking why people need to listen to the media to validate their fear of killing machines." I didn't say anything about validating fears, I'm saying those fears would exist without the media. Your side is the one that first brought up media. "...opening the discussion directly on THINGS by themselves." Yes ,this is what you keep accusing me of, but I am not doing, that is a stawman. I'm not talking about the things by themselves because no gun has ever committed a shooting. Yes, this is about a fear of people, and a gun amplifies that, so both are the problem here. "You went even further in this by attaching the imbecilic opinion that Glorifying something means the complete opposite of the definition..." Another strawman, I would call guns being used to kill bad guys regularly in media glorification. Ever seen the Myth Busters? I liked that show, but their glorification of guns is what I'm talking about. I don't want to ban guns, I just think our country should have about as many shootings as other developed countries with guns. Is that not unreasonable right?
And that is EXACTLY what this means:
And indeed the subject IS and has been Validating Fears through the media, or the Lack of such a Validation, two sides of the same coin.
And? Please tell me what that means.
No, that is what you did indeed, and there is nothing to interpret. The first sentence is clearly ONLY about things themselves and specifically the Fear of things in themselves. Your first sentence posited that things in themselves don't need the media to reinforce a fear of. Your next sentence "?If I approached you with an axe in a threatening way, would you only be afraid if you had seen a person killed with an axe somewhere?" leaves the premise of the fear of things aside for the premise that people don't need a previous strikingly or somewhat similar experience of fear/threat to feel threatened/afraid.
There is no way to connect your first thought of the people not needing the media to fear guns (implying that they naturally fear guns) with your second thought of Threatening people with Weapons. So people naturally fear guns because other people use them in aggressive ways?
Moving on, when I remarked on your opinion, it's not a "strawman" or an opinion. Presenting guns almost exclusively in "battling bad guys" usually with the outcome always that the bad guy is killed because he's using a Gun and generally involving numerous casualties and disregard for the public by either side, is not Glorifying Guns. It's reinforcing people's irrational Fear of guns by presenting them Fantastic scenarios involving unprecedented violence by guns as a righteous response. Phlease, all they are glorifying is the violence itself and you call that Glorifying guns, you think that presenting guns in that light is telling people that Guns are Good, Righteous or that the Supposed good guys and their response with guns is Good and Righteous, or simply that The Good guys are Good and Righteous despite being neither good or righteous but acted clearly careless, capricious and many times with pettiness, selfishness and wanton excess of force at the expense of everyone else in relentless pursuit of "righteousness". Phleaze, do you even know the difference between those nuances, from simply the Glorification of Violence to the Glorification of Guns?
Show me a script played by the media anywhere that Glorifies Guns and we can verify if that is indeed the case simply by discerning how the gun is used and the context it is used in.
Look this has been fun, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere so long as you aren't taking into account what I'm saying, and keep re-defining what my argument is to derail the point. I apologize if my wording has been unclear at some point, but you know full well what I'm getting at, and that's not what you're addressing. This is intellectually dishonest of you, but aside form that I appreciate your civility in this discussion, and would be happy to continue it should you actually address what I'm saying.
Why do you think that I "know full well", are you accusing me of Trolling you now, or being disingenuous one bit in what I expounded? If you Apologize do it without leaving me with the egg dripping down my face. If you can demonstrate why and how ANYTHING you said is correct then I will listen, but so far you've said one thing, and denied it and accused me of "strawmaning" as if I misconstrued or interpreted anything instead of clearly considering what you said and why and how you said it.
I've addressed things with specificity and I expect the same in turn form you:
I have and addressed them in kind, and in whole, both the thoughts and if you can demonstrate otherwise why haven't you and left it as only an unsubstantiated assertion?
More unsubstantiated accusations. Why leave these unsubstantiated accusations here?
If you could actually demonstrate anything that This hinges on, and if you can why haven't you?
Done.