19 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Lauren Bellhouse‏ @lbellho

  1. The inference from her tweet is that this twit believes a structured argument set forth in a reasoned manner that builds to a conclusion she does not like is trolling.

    By extension, using evidence from many other incidents, setting forth a structured argument in a reasoned manner that builds to a conclusion is bashing.

  2. “This twit” did not give permission for a random creep to post her words on a blog. For someone who cares about individual liberty and protection that seems a bit hypocritical. If anyone had read the entire conversation, this tweet was not in response to a coherent argument but rather unintelligent insults and a threat. Hope it makes you feel good to sit in the woods and post random tweets out of context without people’s permission… get a job.

    • I have a job. It’s with a major corporation. My official title is “Senior Engineer–Threat Intelligence”. I don’t “sit in the woods” except when I’m out on a hike or camping. I live in Bellevue Washington.

      All quotes are, almost by definition, out of context. Your tweets are public and no permission is required to share them with other members of the public. If you don’t want them to be public Twitter gives you options to change that.

      I would like to suggest you get a better grasp on reality if you don’t want people to call you out on your absurd claims.

      Thanks for stopping by.

    • People’s permission? When you make a statement in a public forum, why would you expect anyone to ask for permission before quoting it?

    • “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to post on Twitter and remove all doubt.”

      And remember, the Second Amendment is for you too, if you feel ‘threatened’ by a Trump Presidency.

  3. looks like she locked her account!

    Turns out she really just wanted an echo chamber rather than reaching out to us “tiny dick freaks”…..that close to convincing us too!

  4. Do you all feel proud that she locked her account? Are you excited that you “won”? Joe Huffman retweets a conversation between two twitter users on a public forum, and you attack one of them until she locks her account. That sounds like trolling to me. If it doesn’t, take a good, long look at yourself in the mirror. I don’t care about your guns, but I do wish you would act like human beings.

    • Alt-Right Maxim #12: We don’t care what you think of us.

      Gun Grabbers endorse genocide by their actions (see Ukraine, China, Cambodia, etc.) and immediately going to insults shows she had no rational or factual response when her feelings about guns were disproven..

      • Ctrl-Left Maxim #5: Ridicule and insults are considered “reasoned discourse”.

        Ctrl-Left Maxim #6: Factual refutation is bashing, trolling, and abuse.

    • Mmm. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. The left has cheered for when they’ve silenced voices they don’t approve of (especially on Twitter).

      Not much fun when the tables turn, is it?

  5. In cases like this where one side has concealed the discussion I default to the Civil court’s rule about destruction of evidence: the Jury is directed to assume the missing documents prove the other party’s case and are maximally damaging to the destroyer..

    If you can’t stand for your exchange to stay public don’t throw infantile insults before you flounce away in a huff…

    • Exactly. Don’t want to be taken out of context? Then you should not destroy the context. Before we might have cautiously assumed you are a simpleton; your hiding/destruction of a potential audit-trail with possibly exculpatory evidence removes doubt.

      Reasoned Discourse breaks out again, indeed.

  6. “…but I do wish you would act like human beings.”

    See what I did there. I showed a (partial) quote. I must be a demon.

    Here is my thought. You want to be respected while your side simultaneously criticizes (actually mocks) and tries to restrict my civil right (i.e. the Second Amendment) to be armed so as to deter criminal or governmental aggression. So, who has the moral high ground? I do since I stand with the preservation of life and with the Constitution.

    I’m far more decent than you will ever be, Not Upset, Just Disappointed.

    • “…civil right (i.e. the Second Amendment)” — I call it a natural right rather than a civil right. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting the terminology, but as I look at it, civil rights are created by law or constitution, making them a subset of human rights, which in turn are a subset of natural rights. The latter two come from natural law — the way things actually work, rather than just the arbitrary choices of lawmakers.

      As I’ve put it in the past, self-defense is a natural right: even mushrooms understand self-defense.

      • My mistake. You are correct. Self Defense is a natural right. It trumps (pun intended) any attempt to negate it. Those who want to limit my natural right of self-defense are odious. That is why I get really nasty with them. The are basically saying that my life is worthless compared to their pitiful flawed ideology.

Comments are closed.