Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
If he'd asked to be shot, the other guy wouldn't have shot him? Like reverse psychology or something? What are you on about?
|
sexobon: ... instead of enabling armed citizens to kill in the name of security, you enable doctors to kill in the name of convenience!
Happy Monkey: ... Trayvon Martin didn't ask to be "secured".
I used the concept of security referring to the person who did the shooting. You turned "secured" into a euphemism for being shot, apparently just to make a flippant connection to euthanasia. I was comparing Lamplighter to Zimmerman both of whom are relevant to the discussion. You went off on a tangent contrasting Trayvon Martin to unknown euthanasia participants.
sexobon: ... Perhaps if he had, he'd still be alive just like the person who claims to have secured himself from him. Duh.
Here, I returned to using the concept of security in my original relevant context suggesting that if Trayvon Martin had asked Zimmerman (a neighborhood watch member) to protect [secure] him when they met, Trayvon Martin couldn't have been characterized as a threat and might still be alive today.
Thank you for your question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplighter
... Otherwise, such are only debating tactics to divert from my issue of people being killed by guns.
.
|
[bold mine]
You still can't bring yourself to say something like "people killing others with guns." You repeatedly use language that portrays people as victims and guns as perpetrators. That's diagnostic for an antigun fanatic and why I've written you off for meaningful exchange on this subject. Thanks for the entertainment.