Say it all you want, that doesn’t change the fact that it is. And that you left it out purposely because you know it ruins your argument. Keep trying, Simple Jack.
Can anybody name any of the last five mass shooters without looking them up? It's a stupid ass claim that if the media treats them like Voldemort that nobody else in the future will shoot up a crowd. Nobody remembers these s anyway, only what they did. And you can't expect the media in the internet age to not report on details.
I'm not bull ting you when I say you don't know what the you're talking about. And every time I try to get an explanation you blather on about your simple jack meme. This sh** literally has no bearing on my argument. But if you're so sure of yourself, explain it if you have anything (which you don't).
That's a stupid argument. Society is about what's in front of their faces. There's relatively few history buffs out there on anything. These heads get the attention they crave.
Dont post their picture if they're white and have similar views as me
Well, I guess I shouldn't expect anything from a guy with a 17-year-old Nazi for an avatar.
(Slob still hasn't explained wtf he's talking about. That picture may as well be him, tbh)
ers even have the same head tilt.
Most are dead before they receive any attention. My point was that for most Americans , you could name Ted Kaczynski or Timothy McVeigh and immediately know what they did. Or you could name any one of the last 10 mass shooters by name and most wouldn't have a ing clue who they were. So either the media is doing a ty job at "glorifying" them, or these guys are doing a ty job at standing out if that's what they're after.
They would not. Most people that post on message boards maybe would know. We don't live in a society that prides themselves on this stuff. And really, what makes TK and TM more recognizable names in your opinion?
They're doing a great job. School shootings are exponentially up. Haven't you heard?
Guaranteeing that they'll never achieve notoriety, because they're in a crowded field.
Decades of publicity? This current lot aren't going to get that level of attention.
You still don't get it. It's about being the latest and greatest.
These are dumb ed up kids that don't make such calculations. If they did, they'd realize that they need to do something bigger to be put on that level is the point.
Spurtacular really gets worked up when a white guy shoots up a school.
Pretty toothless effort there, champ.
Just an observation. Get real defensive about it.
You still haven’t explained why you purposely excluded the first sentence of the article. You know exactly why, Simple Jack, at least be decent enough to admit it to yourself. Your explanation of “it’s irrelevant” is bull because
1. It’s completely relevant, and ruins your argument.
2. You chose not to delete all the other “irrelevant” parts of the article.
So again, why did you delete the first sentence of the article?
I'm just glad that Spurt hasn't asked anyone to eat his ass in this thread yet.
I have explained it, over and over: it's inconsequential to my point (my point being the key; you seem to think I was writing an essay on the evolution of the media not glorifying killers (which was not the point, dumbass)). You still haven't said anything other than it's "completely relevant". Did you not learn supporting details / arguing a case in elementary school. Guessing you got a lot of ones out of four on the rubric in peer review.
And I'm not just being funny. Make a real case, or continue to be a jackass. It doesn't bother me at this point that you can't make a real challenge.
Last edited by Spurtacular; 05-20-2018 at 02:41 PM.
Why didn’t you delete other “inconsequential” points from the article?
Random babbling; it's what you do when you lose. Par.
"it dI have explained it, over and over: it's inconsequential to my point (my point being the key; you seem to think I was writing an essay on the evolution of the media not glorifying killers (which was not the point, dumbass)). You still haven't said anything other than it's "completely relevant". Did you not learn supporting details / arguing a case in elementary school. Guessing you got a lot of ones out of four on the rubric in peer review.
And I'm not just being funny. Make a real case, or continue to be a jackass. It doesn't bother me at this point that you can't make a real challenge.
Pages of not bothering you
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote