I have neither given you warrant to attack me (other than my opinion differs) nor provoked you into attack. I've kept it civil. I'd appreciate it if you do the same.
Yea, you've kept it civil by trolling everyone else by ignoring half the argument. Your snarkiness doesn't help, and neither is the "woe is me" attitude. You're not the victim here, so just stop it. Seriously.
While I know a lot of people on OT seems to value pointless "zingers" as some form of support to "winning the argument," it doesn't actually do anything to promote discussion of the topic. To some, their entire existance is defined by being a complete jerk to whoever they are replying to. They lead sad and pathetic lives.
While normally I'm an eye for an eye poster (take shots at me, I'll wing them back), I'm trying to avoid doing that going forward as it just sends entire threads into a death spiral of worthlessness.
If you can't handle a discussion without resorting to attacks and insults, then don't reply. It doesn't add anything to the conversation and derails an otherwise worthwhile discussion. I believe my opinions to be right (as everyone believes theirs to be), but I'm open to them being wrong, or at very least seeing it from another perspective. Just jumping in and being a complete jerk just because you disagree doesn't provide any logic or reasoning behind your opinion and just makes you look like you can't come up with anything.
Ok, You're wasting an entire fucking post on this. Good for you.
Funny, because aside from the one comment where I said shut up about the whole sensationalizing deal, I've been pretty civil. The fact that you can't recognize that makes me wonder if I'm talking a brick wall. And I'm being dead serious here. You hear what you want to hear, and that's the truth. You preach about acting like a "grown up," but all I've seen you do is stick your figurative fingers in your figurative years and yell "LALALALALA" like a little child when someone contradicts an argument you've made.
Oops I attacked you again, I guess. I'll expect a paragraph now of "Oh I've done nothing to incite attacks BLAH BLAH BLAH." Just shut up now.
Yes, now I'm doing it on purpose.
No, you don't know what it means. Sorry, but it's true. You are trying to shock and exaggerate using common and necessary items at schools, while I'm using items that aren't common or necessary.
Sensationalize - Present information about (something) in a way that provokes public interest and excitement, at the expense of accuracy
Perhaps both of our accounts are a bit of sensationalism. So what?
Like what? I went through 8-ish years of taking my lunch to school and there wasn't a single instance where it was needed. What exactly has to be in a lunch that REQUIRES a knife? Everything that would require a knife can, and should, be taken care of in the packing of the lunch.
Just because all you ever ate was PB&J doesn't mean the kids have to eat all that too. That's a weak argument and you know it. Should we prepare all foods to be finger foods too, just because you can hurt another kid with a fork too? Should all lunches packed be either soups or sandwiches because we can't afford the safety of our children. Come on. Listen to what you're saying.
My point is there is a line with blurry edges. Some things are less blurry than others. Knives are much less of a blurry line than a water bottle. There are things that can be used as weapons, but they are required for school like pens and pencils. Some things can't be helped, but knives can.
It's a
BUTTER knife. You can't discredit other equally harmless things just because it fits your argument.
Name one thing in school where a simple pocket knife is necessary. It's not the 1001 uses of a pocket knife that's the problem. It's the fact that it's not necesary at school and can be dangerous (to yourself and others), with the school held liable.
I too, had a pocket knife. I took it to school a number of times for no real reason. I even recall my 4th grade teacher asking to borrow it (maybe she was just taking it away for the day, now that I think about it...). I never got in trouble for it, though.
9/10, the knife won't be used as a weapon. The issue arises the 1/10 it is, and by the fact that it's completely unnecessary to have a pocket knife in school, it's banned. Just because
My response was mostly to your hasty generalization that guns should be allowed because they're harmless when not used in a harmless manner. I know what a knife is capable of. Is it necessary in a school setting, no but that wasn't the point here.
At any rate, this is just a circular argument here, and is producing absolutely nothing, so I'll just stop here.
Facebook
Twitter