I would hazard a guess that more doctors have treated gun shot wounds than NRA members have treated gun shot wounds. That would give them more validity in talking about gun shot wounds than the NRA.
It depends. They would certainly know more about treating a gunshot wound. That wouldn't mean they know anything about what sort of guns produce what sort of wounds.
And yet you just said this?
It is pretty clear that the doctors were specifically referring to .223 rifles.
You argue the doctors are wrong because they are talking about the wounds from a specific weapon then you argue they don't know what weapons produce what sort of wounds. It seems you want to claim doctors know something at the same time they don't know something. You are not making a logical argument, you are throwing out contradictory statements and hoping no one notices. And you claim to have a high IQ? The internet is such an interesting space because people that lie about their intelligence quickly show that they are lying.
Quote: sceletera wrote:
But we should accept your falsehoods?
If you can find any, feel free to point them out.
Here, I point out several.
You falsely claim homosexuality is a mental disorder.
You falsely claimed Obama had issued an executive order when it was only executive action.
You falsely argued that simply having a mental disorder would prevent someone from having a gun when other criteria also had to be met.
Quote: sceletera wrote:
You will now have the urge to claim I have never shown you to make a false statement. But you might want to reconsider that.
Meh. I've found many errors on your part compared to the one single error of mine that you found.
A diversion followed by a lie.
You attempt to divert from your untruths by claiming I have made some and you pointed them out. Please point out the errors on my part you have found. Here is a link to untruth number 6 of yours I referenced.
Anyone can follow the thread backwards and find the other 5 falsehoods you told on top of the three falsehoods I pointed out in the single post linked above.
I will await your links to any 2 errors of mine you have pointed out that are clearly errors.
The lie in your sentence was when you wrote I only found one error of yours. You may have only admitted to one error on your part. That doesn't mean I only found one.
But you seem to have a pattern.
You stated this:
However, when I'm confronted with an individual who:
a) has never shown me to be wrong,
b) is trying to claim that I am wrong without even making an argument against anything that I say,
c) is making an untrue claim about how I'm always wrong and there are many examples of me being wrong, and
d) cannot point out a single instance of me being wrong,
of course in that situation I point out their inability to point out anything that I'm wrong about.
It is a perfectly reasonable response to such a dishonorable person and tactic.
It seems even if someone has:
a) shown you to be wrong
b) made an argument that clearly supports how you are wrong
c) isn't claiming you are always wrong but only pointing out you have been wrong on more than one occassion
d) can point to more than a single instance of you being
you still respond to them the same way you would as someone who didn't do those things. That can hardly be called a reasonable response. I would call it a reflex reaction where you refuse to admit you are ever wrong. Hardly a sign of the intelligence you claim to have.