Liberty News Forum - Political News Forum

Uyr

Ex Member

Re: Children On Farms Regulated By Feds!
Reply #120 - Mar 18^th, 2012 at 10:51am

Self-radicalizing Harry wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 1:46am:

You ask for numbers, and claim I make it a numbers game?

My request for the acceptable number of child deaths in farm accidents from you is nothing but the logical extension of your own implicit conclusion that an acceptable number exists, given, as you have said, the statistical fact that such deaths are rare. So I'm just asking you for the number you'd personally find an acceptable annual figure.

Back to top

IP Logged

Self-radicalizing Harry

LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker

Offline

I used to be Bert, but
something went terribly
wro

Posts: 19,577
Gender: male

Re: Children On Farms Regulated By Feds!
Reply #121 - Mar 18^th, 2012 at 11:14am

Quote:

My request for the acceptable number of child deaths in farm accidents from you is nothing but the logical extension of your own implicit conclusion that an acceptable number exists, given, as you have said, the statistical fact that such deaths are rare. So I'm just asking you for the number you'd personally find an acceptable annual figure.

I never said an "acceptable" level existed. These delusions of yours are quite worrisome.

Back to top

Give me ambiguity, or give me something else.

IP Logged

starsnstripes

Ex Member

Re: Children On Farms Regulated By Feds!
Reply #122 - Mar 18^th, 2012 at 11:19am

Quote:

My request for the acceptable number of child deaths in farm accidents from you is nothing but the logical extension of your own implicit conclusion that an acceptable number exists, given, as you have said, the statistical fact that such deaths are rare. So I'm just asking you for the number you'd personally find an acceptable annual figure.

What's is not acceptable about you, in spite of your oft repeated use of that term (what's up with that?) , is that you wallow in sophistry like a pig in his slop and that you expect people to let you get away with it.

Back to top

IP Logged

starsnstripes Ex Member	Re: Children On Farms Regulated By Feds! Reply #123 - Mar 18^th, 2012 at 11:22am Self-radicalizing Harry wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 11:14am: I never said an "acceptable" level existed. These delusions of yours are quite worrisome. Nobody has ever even implied that. Where the hell did that come from? Someone should put the pacifier back in Uyr's mouth, I can hear him cry from here.
Back to top	IP Logged

Self-radicalizing Harry LNF Speaker LNF Bunker Offline I used to be Bert, but something went terribly wro Posts: 19,577 Gender:	Re: Children On Farms Regulated By Feds! Reply #124 - Mar 18^th, 2012 at 11:24am Quote: Nobody has ever even implied that. Where the hell did that come from? Someone should put the pacifier back in Uyr's mouth, I can hear him cry from here. He always whines when he loses.
Back to top	Give me ambiguity, or give me something else. IP Logged

starsnstripes Ex Member	Re: Children On Farms Regulated By Feds! Reply #125 - Mar 18^th, 2012 at 11:28am Self-radicalizing Harry wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 11:24am: He always whines when he loses. That means he never stops whining then. Wow, I hope his guardian ad litem wears earplugs.
Back to top	IP Logged

SiouxRebel

LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker

Offline

Explaining the Foundations
of America

Posts: 10,299
Central Oregon
Gender: male

Re: Children On Farms Regulated By Feds!
Reply #126 - Mar 18^th, 2012 at 11:41am

Self-radicalizing Harry wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 11:14am:

I never said an "acceptable" level existed. These delusions of yours are quite worrisome.

It is understandable that you wish to ignore the question, and that idiots like StarsnStripes would support you.

As Uyr stated, and you continue to ignore, is that you implied an acceptable number when you denigrated the new rules, then said 188 deaths annually was indication of the accidents being "rare". Taking the two sentiments together one would wonder just what would be an acceptable number to you. Since 1-200 are obviously acceptable by your comments, how about 201-300, or 301-400?

If that is beyond your intellectual capabilities we will understand.

Back to top

"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

"It is fatal to enter a war without the will to win it."

General George Patton

IP Logged

Self-radicalizing Harry

LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker

Offline

I used to be Bert, but
something went terribly
wro

Posts: 19,577
Gender: male

Re: Children On Farms Regulated By Feds!
Reply #127 - Mar 18^th, 2012 at 11:50am

SiouxRebel wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 11:41am:

It is understandable that you wish to ignore the question, and that idiots like StarsnStripes would support you.

As Uyr stated, and you continue to ignore, is that you implied an acceptable number when you denigrated the new rules, then said 188 deaths annually was indication of the accidents being "rare". Taking the two sentiments together one would wonder just what would be an acceptable number to you. Since 1-200 are obviously acceptable by your comments, how about 201-300, or 301-400?

If that is beyond your intellectual capabilities we will understand.

I implied nothing.

Back to top

Give me ambiguity, or give me something else.

IP Logged

Uyr

Ex Member

Re: Children On Farms Regulated By Feds!
Reply #128 - Mar 18^th, 2012 at 11:52am

Self-radicalizing Harry wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 11:14am:

I never said an "acceptable" level existed. These delusions of yours are quite worrisome.

Obviously an acceptable number exists for you, given the fact you're satisfied to allow continuing child deaths in farm accidents as long as they remain "rare." So what's the number, Harry?

Is 50,000 kids killed in farm accidents each year "rare" enough for you?

20,000?

13,000?

7500?

2750?

1000?

700?

623?

392?

254?

199?

102?

91?

79?

63?

54?

48?

33?

26?

21?

16?

12?

9?

4?

1?

...0?

Which of these numbers comes closest to your personal level of acceptability?

Back to top

IP Logged

Self-radicalizing Harry

LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker

Offline

I used to be Bert, but
something went terribly
wro

Posts: 19,577
Gender: male

Re: Children On Farms Regulated By Feds!
Reply #129 - Mar 18^th, 2012 at 11:54am

Quote:

Obviously an acceptable number exists for you, given the fact you're satisfied to allow continuing child deaths in farm accidents as long as they remain "rare." So what's the number, Harry?

Is 50,000 kids killed in farm accidents each year "rare" enough for you?

20,000?

13,000?

7500?

2750?

1000?

700?

623?

392?

254?

199?

102?

91?

79?

63?

54?

48?

33?

26?

21?

16?

12?

9?

4?

1?

...0?

Which of these numbers comes closest to your personal level of acceptability?

Zero, of course. Why do you ask such stupid questions?

Back to top

Give me ambiguity, or give me something else.

IP Logged