By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
bouzane on 28 January 2016
Edit Thread
pokoko said:
bouzane said:

 


That's it, pitch a fit, classic pokoko. My choice of words was poor but it beats having a pathetic argument backed up by such a poor example. The patrons couldn't breathe because of the mace, did they suffocate? No, they died because they were trampled which is a common occurance in overcrowded nightclubs. If all you can provide are examples of individuals misusing tear gases and disrupting gatherings or as part of physical attacks I can honestly say that you have done virtually nothing to justify government enforced bans on these sprays. I know exactly why it took so much to force you to provide further examples of the misuse of tear gases, because they are rather unimpressive. I know that getting maced will cause you agony, disable you for hours or days and make buildings uninhabitable. I'm not downplaying their potency. What I am downplaying is their lethality. Tear gases are not fatal unless you use them in a situation which would have resulted in death regardless (such as the nightclub example you provided). I don't think I could have cleared out that school (without burning it to the ground) but so what, you still haven't given me a compelling reason for their ban. I once again have to reiterate my point that tear gases make great defensive, non-lethal weapons that should be legally carried because they can be used to prevent violent attacks with minimal harm to the perpetrators. I want you to give me a compelling reason as to why they should be restricted let alone outlawed outright because isolated cases of their misuse resulting in disruption and non-life-threatening injuries isn't cutting it. Tear gases are a tool which can prevent attacks that actually threaten the lives of victims, attacks that I might add are not being prevented by the government in many instances. I apologize for my lack of organization / paragraphs but I hardly care anymore.

If you'd replied with respect, I wouldn't have had a problem, but you had to make it personal.  Why?  I don't know.  You say "classic pokoko" but I don't even know who you are.  Don't be an ass and then try to take the high road.  It makes you look fake.  You wanted an argument when you attacked me, don't lie about that.  All you had to do was say you disagree but you decide to go with "pathetic"?  You meant nothing personal by that?  I call bullshit.

If you think directly fatal results are the only form of misuse that matters, so be it.  Nothing I can do about your opinion.  All I was doing from the very start was showing how it could be misused and the probable reasoning behind the ban.  I never even said that I agree with it.  Yet, for some reason, people like want to turn that into a fight rather than a discussion.  You know what that is?  That's pathetic--no insult intended.

 

You don't remember me but I remember you. This behaviour is exactly in line with how you have conducted yourself in the past. You were extremely dismissive and insulting and I am always glad to reciprocate. My only regret is this time I escalated instead of waiting for you to do so first. The thing that bothers me the most is how you play innocent when you are always dismissive and either passive agressive or outright insulting. If you are going to make poorly thought out arguments and do little to back them up, all while calling others naive or saying that their points are nonsense expect to be called out on it, alright. You resorted to saying that I was just using the facts to fit my agenda. Were you seriously proposing that I was pushing an agenda while you were not? How about addressing my points instead of, once again, attacking me personally? This is the crux of my problem with you as a user on this site. Stop dismissing opposing points of view as nonsense and stop calling other users' motivations into quastion, that is very petty of you. Don't bother to try to turn this back on me because I know I conducted myself poorly but that doesn't change the fact that you are a very unpleasant individual to have such discussions with.

As far as your argument that state enforced bans on tear gas are justifiable based upon the potentially fatal risks is both a weak argument and one that you supported very poorly. There are inherent risks involved in any form of self defense and tear gas is no exception. This in no way justifies an authoritarian ban on a legitimate means of self defense. Additionally you could have at least pointed out the fact that tear gas has been linked to fatalities involving individuals who have bronchitis / asthma. Instead you posted a link to an incident at a nightclub where the mace likely contributed not a single fatality because there were several other, far more significant factors involved. You could have at least put the bare minimum amout of effort into supporting your logically unsound argument. When you say that somebody's points are nonsense and that they are just pushing an agenda you're actually surprised when they become combative? Seriously pokoko, having a different viewpoint is fine so long as you stop:

1. doing nothing / very little to support your stance on the issue

2. stop dismissing other viewpoints or insulting other users

3. acting innocent despite being disrecpectful, either as a response to others or without provocation