Neanderpundit

For that can be the ONLY REASON PEOPLE ARE DRIVING AS THEY ARE.

Seriously, what other reason could people have for driving at a consistent speed of ten or twelve miles an hour on 45 mph roads than the protection of their sensitive, fleshy nether grapes?

I have been running errands for TWO HOURS AND NOT ACCOMPLISING ANYTHING due to the IDIOTS THAT INFEST THE ROADS LIKE TICKS ON A MANGY DOG?

I am pretty sure you do not know what it means.

Or, perhaps you do, and your intention is merely evil.

Via Tam, a missive from Joel of “The ultimate answer to kings”

I think Joel is pretty well on point, but he falls into the trap set for him by the moonbat in question. Case in point, her “Question 1” and Joel’s answer:

1. Do you believe that criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns without background checks?

I believe that they will continue to easily do so anyway, and that any “solution” you propose will succeed only in disarming their intended victims.

Joel is in perfect form here, except for this word, which I grow to hate more every day.

“Believe”

By Joel saying he “believes” he lowers himself to her level, where she can argue that the debate is between his beliefs and her beliefs. The next step is to say that her beliefs have equal validity to his, and then to say that since her beliefs will lead to a better world, that hers are more valid.

So: Joel, if I may, let me say what I’m pretty sure you actually mean:

“I know, because it can be demonstrated, that they will continue to easily do so anyway, and that any “solution” you propose will succeed only in disarming their intended victims”

Belief is not required. Belief is held (Especially by the faithless) to the same level as Faith. It is clearly not; belief is a fantasy and a fabrication, almost invariably. When you allow anti-gun idiots to compare their “beliefs” to your facts on the same level, you have already lost the argument, because the moonbat will always be able to say to him or herself “Well, I believe differently, and MY belief is based on my compassion, so MY belief is correct and yours is not.”

Joel, at least from what I see of his post, HAS no “beliefs” on this matter; he is empowered by demonstrable, provable facts, and in my humble opinion his only mistake is to self-discredit his knowledge to the level of mere “belief”.

People “believe” in the flying sphaghetti monster. Alien anal probes. Hangar 18. Jim Jones. Heaven’s gate. Some beliefs may be inert, but the more I examine them the more I am convinced that beliefs are inherently damaging to the human condition.

To paraphrase Yoda, if I may: Know. Or do not know. There is no “Believe”.

I only occasionally read “Kings”, usually when Tam or someone else links- but I hope this has not been taken as any sort of criticism, because it is only intended to be a clarification- a solidifying of the basically perfect answers to what can only be viewed as asinine questions.

This statement, for instance, is flawless- certainly I cannot find fault with it in any way.

You and I will never have any point in common. I’d be prepared to deny, under oath, that we belong to the same species.

I would frame this debate in the following manner, were the moonbat in question capable of coherent thought:

“Do you know how many lives were saved last year because of the private ownership of firearms?”

and of course all the other questions we’d like to ask the idiots.

And each time the idiot in question responded with “I believe” they get tazed.

hey, don’t thank me now, thank me when all the moonbats can be instantly recognized by the twitching.

Oh, and thanks to Joanna for prompting my reaction which started as a comment that led to a post.