I think he's saying that when you can't defend your original position, you turn it into a metaphor and then defend the metaphor.
Printable View
I think he's saying that when you can't defend your original position, you turn it into a metaphor and then defend the metaphor.
Oh looky here: someone's done the easy bit for you.
Attachment 1132
Now try to explain why the US isn't retarded about guns.
See if you can do it without getting yourself banned.
:popcorn:
^^ This is fucking retarded. You want to explain yourself or you want to move on?Quote:
But YOU can't have a high-capacity ammunition magazine to protect the people you love. Because the people you love apparently aren't important enough.
You can literally copy/paste images into the text box, poop.
https://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerf...achmentid=1132
Can you not even follow the conversation you're taking part in?
You said guns save lives.
Oskar called bullshit.
You then started talking about chainsaws.
Then you went on to swimming pools.
Do yourself a favour, and stop watching Trump speeches. You are beginning to be as incoherent as he is.
I just see a blue link that says "attachment 1132". If I click it I get this message
Quote:
Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator
I tried that before and it didn't work.
Still doesn't work.
Attachment 1133
Get google chrome?
Firefox in 2019 is like IE in 2009
This might not seem related, but it is. And the question is mainly for poop.
Should they ban fighting in hockey?
Really it's not even close to a good analogy with guns.
Turns out it's a lot easier to hurt a guy with your stick or by ramming your shoulder into his head when he isn't looking than to punch him when he is standing there defending himself.
Weird how your responses turn into dick-hole memes as soon as logic starts to chip away at your agrument.
Do they not have televisions where you live? Have you ever watched the NHL?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roY9m4gmgsU
Yes they should ban fighting in hockey. Are hockey players exempt from law? Can they stab each other? Can they smoke crack? Can they commit wire fraud? Why let them assault other people? It's not boxing, it's not a disciplined fighting sport, so it's unacceptable.
Except it's great entertainment, so whatever, let them at each other.
Yes I have. And in my observation, fighting is much more prevalent than spearing injuries and concussions caused by dirty checks.
And I believe you know why fighting is still allowed in hockey. It's because if guys couldn't fight, they would settle grudges with their wooden clubs, shoe-knives, or by launching their bodies at each other while moving 20mph.
And guys can't line up Wayne Gretzky for a punishing body check, even a legal one, because it means exchanging knuckles with McSoarley
The fighting deters worse crime. The only way to stop a bad goon is with a good goon.
Guns deter crime. Guns deter government tyranny. Defensive gun use saves more lives than are lost to offensive gun use. What exactly is your beef with guns and hockey fights?
You can't run into someone on the street either, but you can in hockey, eggball, rugby, etc. without it being considered illegal.
Similarly, it's in the rules that if you and another guy both want to fight, you do, and then you each get 5 minutes in the penalty box. The worst that can happen in a fight is someone breaks their hand hitting the other guy on the helmet.
With a stick or elbow you can break bones, knock out teeth, and give someone a concussion pretty easily, given how fast they're skating.
Footballers aren't allowed to fight, and very occasionally, a footballer is charged with assault for breaking the law which they are subject to just as mere mortals are.
You can tackle a player, but that's a critical aspect of the game. Rather like punching in the head in boxing.
You haven't watched in a long time then. Most of the damage players get from others players today is from illegal hits, not fighting. And it's always worse damage than a black eye or bruised knuckles.
Confirms the above; these guys played in the 1980s and 90s lol.
Watch a game that took place in the last ten years if you want to argue about how the game is played ffs.
The only way goons get stopped at all nowadays is if the league suspends them.
They had some incidents in the 70s when goon hockey was in its heyday where players would go into the stands and beat up fans. A few of them got charged I think.
The guy who did this also got charged.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTbhwCedkQs
If by 'critical' you mean there's less than one fight per game on average, then yeah I agree.
Attachment 1140
Edit: Sorry I meant less than one fight every three games.
None. it can even be a disadvantage because there is a rule that if one player clearly instigates the fight he gets an extra two minute penalty.
It's usually one of three things that starts a fight:
1. The other guy is being a dick and you're sick of it so you fight him. Maybe he's jabbing you in the back of the knees with his stick or calling your wife a whore or both.
2. The other guy put a dirty hit on one of your teammates sometime in the last two or three games and you're sticking up for your teammate.
3. Your team is losing and you're trying to get them and/or the crowd fired up.
there are two arguments supporting fighting in hockey. They are:
1) It would be far more gruesome and dangerous without fighting. Guys are armed with sticks and have swords attached to their feet. They move at 20mph in full padding. They are lethal weapons flying past each other on ice. If there was no outlet for people to settle scores, things would get ugly real fucking fast.
2) It's really easy to nullify a skilled skater's scoring threat by putting him on his ass. Superstar players would get creamed on a regular basis if there was no one protecting them. Teams have "enforcers" whose job it is to knock the teeth out of anyone who puts a hit on the guy who is responsible for ticket sales.
I get why they fight, I was pointing out it's not a "critical aspect" of the game. You could play hockey perfectly fine if it was not allowed, unlike tackling in football, or punching the head in boxing.
Good explanation. Too bad it's from twenty years ago.
Teams don't have enforcers any more. If someone hits your star player in the head with their stick then someone on your team just goes back and hit the other team's star in the head with his stick. It's a rough fucking game with or without fighting.
Ong is right; you don't actually need fighting. It's just fun to watch.
Coming back to the main topic, if hockey players were allowed to carry guns during the game would there be more or fewer gun deaths in hockey?
I think the analogy is pretty apt. When teams have goons....everybody behaves.
More guns = less crime.
Between 500K and 3M life-saving defensive gun uses per year according to the CDC. How many people die from guns?
Everyone seems to be dropping stats like this is some kind of game that can be won by body count. So fine, guns save 3 million people. Guns kill 1% of that, and 2/3 of those are suicides
guns win
They don't behave whether there are goons or not. You're just repeating outdated dogma that you saw some dufus on ESPN using in the 1990s as an argument to not ban fighting.
Whatever you say.
What are the guns saving people from? Measles? Why is the CDC interested in this anyways? Or is there another CDC I don't know about...
Because no one will buy a ticket to stare at an empty sheet of ice.
Because communism is bad. I don't support handouts.Quote:
Why not hand out guns to people in the stands too?
Works for me.Quote:
That way if someone tries to take your seat while you're in the can...blammo!
The players will only be allowed to shoot each other in self-defense.
The hockey stick clearly is not enough of a deterrent to violence in hockey. Guns are needed.
TheSpoonald may apologize for twice breaking the rules of our forum, and twice further disrespecting them with an alt account.
OR
TheSpoonald may have a permanent ban as well.
This game is over.
You acknowledge that you understand our rules, and apologize for breaking them in the past, and promise to not break them in the future
or you're not welcome here.
So you have a situation where good guys with guns are preventing bad guys with guns from killing other good guys.
And yet, good guys still get killed by guns. In the US this happens a lot compared to most civilized places.
Now, you can either make it hard for anyone to have a gun and reduce gun crime and homocide rates. Or, you can try to make sure every good guy has a gun. And if some of those good guys actually turn out to be bad guys who go and shoot up a school, well that's the price of freedom. Sometimes people just have to die.
lol bye banana.
Countdown to rage-posting account in 30...29...28