• stephen01king@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      That’s was my answer. The twisted reason they would want to bash queers doesn’t seem like it would be discouraged by a simple stun gun, unlike with an actual gun. Now, why don’t you answer my question?

      Also, remember when you said a bigot would simply attack you from behind when you open carry a gun? What happened to that logic when it comes to stun guns?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        The twisted reason they would want to bash queers doesn’t seem like it would be discouraged by a simple stun gun, unlike with an actual gun.

        That doesn’t explain why, that is just your opinion that it would be. Why would it be?

        I think your inability to answer this question says a lot.

        • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Maybe you should answer the question, then, since you claim the bigots would just attack a queer open-carrying a gun from the back. You even claim they would rather shoot them instead of backing off if they open carry. What reason are these claims are based on, then?

          Also, why are you avoiding answering my question, then? Is the logical inconsistency in your own argument prevents you from providing an answer?

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            In other words, you cannot give an explanation for why a bigot would attack a queer person with a stun gun on their belt.

            Believe it or not, repeatedly asking me questions when you refuse to answer mine only shows that.

            Sounds like a stun gun would be fine.

            • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              And you’re avoiding answering the exact same question for why you claim they would still attack a queer open-carrying a gun.

              I cannot really answer specifically since I have no idea how the bigots think, but my logic is based on the logic you presented first, which is that open-carrying a gun won’t stop a bigot from attacking a queer person. Now you’re trying to completely ignore the fact that you presented the logic first, and repeatedly ignoring my attempt at pointing it out.

              Why are you trying to be so disingenuous when we were having a pretty civil discussion before?

              Why don’t you finally answer this question. If you believed, as you claim before, that a queer open-carrying a gun still runs risk of being attacked by bigots, why would you also believe that open carrying a stun gun would deter them?

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                7 months ago

                You are correct. I will not answer your question when you won’t answer mine. But at least you finally admitted that you actually can’t explain why a bigot would attack a queer person with a stun gun on their belt.

                If you believed, as you claim before, that a queer open-carrying a gun still runs risk of being attacked by bigots, why would you also believe that open carrying a stun gun would deter them?

                You said a gun on their belt was a deterrence. My question was based on that.

                Your admittance that you can’t answer my question shows that the answer is that if it is a deterrent, so is a stun gun.

                • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I already did answer, you were just to stubborn to see it. I said I cannot really answer, since I don’t have an understanding on how bigot’s mind works, and my claim was simply that a stun gun is less of a deterrent than an actual gun.

                  You said a gun on their belt was a deterrence. My question was based on that.

                  Your admittance that you can’t answer my question shows that the answer is that if it is a deterrent, so is a stun gun.

                  And I already countered that by pointing out that the difference in level of lethality between the two means the amount of risk a bigot would have to face in order to attack a queer is different, therefore they do not have the same level of deterrence.

                  I have also not denied when you claimed that a gun is not a complete deterrence, so why would repeatedly asking me why a stun gun would not completely deter a bigot make any sense in this context? I was using the same logic as you did when you said a gun doesn’t completely deter attackers.

                  On the other hand, it was you who claimed that both of these things have the same level of deterrence and refusing to answer my question of why that would be. Why don’t you finally answer that question and stop derailing the conversation.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    And I already countered that by pointing out that the difference in level of lethality between the two means the amount of risk a bigot would have to face in order to attack a queer is different, therefore they do not have the same level of deterrence.

                    I see… so this would be a person who is so extremely stupid that they would attack someone with a stun gun on their belt, but not a regular gun.

                    That doesn’t sound especially plausible.

                    And, again, I never said they were a deterrent, you did. I can’t answer why they would have the same level of deterrence when, yet again, I never made a claim that they were a deterrent. I was merely responding to your claim that they were.