|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
|
|
Some states have those laws, requiring a cool off period before the abortion. But they require two doctors visits, two days off, two trips to an often remote clinic due to other restrictions. But on paper, the requirement looks fine. The devil is in the detail and end results.
But I agree with you in principle that reasonable regulation would be fine. But much like the gun control people, the anti-abortion folks don’t let pro-choice advocates help write the laws.
|
|
|
On September 08 2018 04:41 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2018 04:28 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 04:23 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:10 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 03:59 Danglars wrote:On September 08 2018 03:11 evilfatsh1t wrote:
umm...do you understand how your political system works? aside from trumps' very questionable appointments, typically individuals that are experts in their certain field are appointed to provide input in relation to their field. the fact that they take the job and they studied that area make them much more suitable and capable than your average barista. i mean...this kind of logic is like "why should we listen to nasa about space travel? what makes them more qualified?" or "why should we listen to doctors about medicine? im pretty sure i know better about vaccines". I stated exactly the problems I had with your characterization of the political system in my last post. It is in fact very different that listening to doctors about medicine. And I don't know about you, but I might trust the average barista more than I trust Trump, understand? So in fact for our differences, I'd discuss the points I raised previously, because nothing has changed here. We both know every disastrous and great legislation both have their starts in someone with the label of "expert in ..." and this is mere restatement of the previous post I responded to. also, name me any single piece of legislation that was discussed by your citizens before it was passed in government. zero.
whether you like it or not, the most influence citizens have outside of actual elections is voicing approval. no government in the world has ever asked the general population to take part in the discussion of the particulars for any implementation of any law. Obamacare. Citizens tossed out all the great majority of politicians that voted for it. Citizens had discussed socialized medicine, subsidies, and various carrot-and-stick models for a very long time before that. See the previous debate over Hillarycare back in the 90s. In fact, legislation passed without prior citizen input is one of those telling signs for a tyrannical government, you know! and since you seem to think a tyrannical government is still a possibility why dont you highlight us a picture of how exactly that scenario could come to be and how it would play out. you want to be part of the discussion when your government passes laws right? surely then you have at least the bare minimum ability to guess how things would play out in hypothetical scenarios? id be very interested to hear your story of how the general public would heroically overthrow the entire US goverment and why such actions may have been required in the first place How about a distant government in Washington DC votes an ordinary bill to make gun ownership illegal, and a friendly supreme court adopts some of the views espoused in the minority opinion of Heller and says the second amendment doesn't really mean what you think it means. There's one. How about your state declares that racism against whites isn't really racism, and they owe a reparation tax, and a friendly court agrees that there's no constitutional violations because of historical discrimination. How about the same cultural allies declare that free speech does not protect hate speech, and pastors disagreeing with gay marriage and private schools disagreeing with transgenderism must change their rhetoric or risk fines (or jail)? Those are several either opening shots leading down the chain of tyranny, or final conclusions to a different chain of smaller offenses. But the same problem exists as part of a fire. You don't need a great imagination to assess how a fire might start to know the need for fire extinguishing methods. It lends itself to mockery and parodies of the various doomsday scenarios, not the rational citizens recognition that an armed citizenry is the first bulwark against future government tyranny. Many countries have declared this point, usually specific to certain types of hate speech. I'm not sure how it has hurt society. Even the USA has some rules regarding hate speech. Based on this, you must be really angry at the parts of the republican party that are trying to take away the rights of women to choose on pregnancy, and the rights of people to marry whoever they want regardless of gender? Arn't you just opening yourself up for the same question phrased back to you while also being on topic while yours isn't? I mean your argument just boils down to "my hipocracy is better then yours so ha". Whats my hypocrisy? If you are specific I'll attempt to answer. If it is about individuals rights and freedoms, I'm completely ok with regulation. I think speed limits are a good thing, I'm completely fine with abortions being regulated. And I am fine with gun regulation. You snarked that Danglers must feel bad about being pro life and against gay marriage beacuse of their non constitutional rights but had a problem with people restricting a constitutional right. Isn't the same argument that you're for gay marriage and pro choice but against the peoples right to bear arms?
What is this snarking business? Both you and Danglars complain about snarking when someone puts forth a position different from your own frequently and quite frankly it is rather tiring. Also you Sermakola don't seem to understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Medicine for instance is regulated but not illegal. This is very clear and simple, I don't understand how you can equivocate or confuse the two together.
|
On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2018 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:28 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 04:23 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:10 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 03:59 Danglars wrote:On September 08 2018 03:11 evilfatsh1t wrote:
umm...do you understand how your political system works? aside from trumps' very questionable appointments, typically individuals that are experts in their certain field are appointed to provide input in relation to their field. the fact that they take the job and they studied that area make them much more suitable and capable than your average barista. i mean...this kind of logic is like "why should we listen to nasa about space travel? what makes them more qualified?" or "why should we listen to doctors about medicine? im pretty sure i know better about vaccines". I stated exactly the problems I had with your characterization of the political system in my last post. It is in fact very different that listening to doctors about medicine. And I don't know about you, but I might trust the average barista more than I trust Trump, understand? So in fact for our differences, I'd discuss the points I raised previously, because nothing has changed here. We both know every disastrous and great legislation both have their starts in someone with the label of "expert in ..." and this is mere restatement of the previous post I responded to. also, name me any single piece of legislation that was discussed by your citizens before it was passed in government. zero.
whether you like it or not, the most influence citizens have outside of actual elections is voicing approval. no government in the world has ever asked the general population to take part in the discussion of the particulars for any implementation of any law. Obamacare. Citizens tossed out all the great majority of politicians that voted for it. Citizens had discussed socialized medicine, subsidies, and various carrot-and-stick models for a very long time before that. See the previous debate over Hillarycare back in the 90s. In fact, legislation passed without prior citizen input is one of those telling signs for a tyrannical government, you know! and since you seem to think a tyrannical government is still a possibility why dont you highlight us a picture of how exactly that scenario could come to be and how it would play out. you want to be part of the discussion when your government passes laws right? surely then you have at least the bare minimum ability to guess how things would play out in hypothetical scenarios? id be very interested to hear your story of how the general public would heroically overthrow the entire US goverment and why such actions may have been required in the first place How about a distant government in Washington DC votes an ordinary bill to make gun ownership illegal, and a friendly supreme court adopts some of the views espoused in the minority opinion of Heller and says the second amendment doesn't really mean what you think it means. There's one. How about your state declares that racism against whites isn't really racism, and they owe a reparation tax, and a friendly court agrees that there's no constitutional violations because of historical discrimination. How about the same cultural allies declare that free speech does not protect hate speech, and pastors disagreeing with gay marriage and private schools disagreeing with transgenderism must change their rhetoric or risk fines (or jail)? Those are several either opening shots leading down the chain of tyranny, or final conclusions to a different chain of smaller offenses. But the same problem exists as part of a fire. You don't need a great imagination to assess how a fire might start to know the need for fire extinguishing methods. It lends itself to mockery and parodies of the various doomsday scenarios, not the rational citizens recognition that an armed citizenry is the first bulwark against future government tyranny. Many countries have declared this point, usually specific to certain types of hate speech. I'm not sure how it has hurt society. Even the USA has some rules regarding hate speech. Based on this, you must be really angry at the parts of the republican party that are trying to take away the rights of women to choose on pregnancy, and the rights of people to marry whoever they want regardless of gender? Arn't you just opening yourself up for the same question phrased back to you while also being on topic while yours isn't? I mean your argument just boils down to "my hipocracy is better then yours so ha". Whats my hypocrisy? If you are specific I'll attempt to answer. If it is about individuals rights and freedoms, I'm completely ok with regulation. I think speed limits are a good thing, I'm completely fine with abortions being regulated. And I am fine with gun regulation. You snarked that Danglers must feel bad about being pro life and against gay marriage beacuse of their non constitutional rights but had a problem with people restricting a constitutional right. Isn't the same argument that you're for gay marriage and pro choice but against the peoples right to bear arms? What is this snarking business? Both you and Danglars complain about snarking when someone puts forth a position different from your own frequently and quite frankly it is rather tiring. Also you Sermakola don't seem to understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Medicine for instance is regulated but not illegal. This is very clear and simple, I don't understand how you can equivocate or confuse the two together.
Ok I don't think you understand the difference between making something illegal and making something regulated. Automatic weapons in america are regulated and illegal. Medicine is regulated and illegal. You're the one confused about the word yet you want to prejudice the conversation with you opinion. Do you really think that the conversation will go well after that or are you just barking for barkings sake?
|
|
|
I would like to know, just from a logistical standpoint, how the "they're trying to take my guns" argument works. Our government in this country is exceptional at using lots of time to do absolutely nothing, but they think all of a sudden they're going to mobilize and come seize all your guns? You think they care that much? Our government has shit to not do. Might as well add that to the list.
|
If you're just going to talk to me assuming I'm an idiot I'm not going to continue this conversation.
|
I mean, I jest a little bit, but I think JimmiC makes a lot of fair points too. If you don't wanna continue the conversation because I poked a little fun, I'm not sure what that's supposed to say.
|
|
|
I mean if your asumptions are fact why am I even in this conversation.
I was making a point about what you posted. You decided to change the conversation instead of discussing what I said. I never said anything about "der gona take our guns" but if you want to assume thats what this conversation is now you can do that on your own.
|
|
|
On September 08 2018 10:09 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2018 09:54 Sermokala wrote:
I mean if your asumptions are fact why am I even in this conversation.
I was making a point about what you posted. You decided to change the conversation instead of discussing what I said. I never said anything about "der gona take our guns" but if you want to assume thats what this conversation is now you can do that on your own. If you are fine with regulation I don't think we have a argument at all. Just when some reasonable proposals are made, accept them. I assumed you were against regulating it, or didn't understand my point since you rolled in calling me a hypocrite.
Jesus I've said this over and over again. The issue is that you can't just make a fallacious argument comparing one persons support for gun rights and their support for more regulation on gay marriage and abortion regulations.
|
This thread:
"anti-gun" people: Guns are mostly bad you buffoons!!
"pro-gun" people: If you are just going to insult people we won't have a discussion.
"anti-gun" people: Okay then, these are our proposals, what do you think of them? What are your plans for stopping gun shootings?
"pro-gun" people: No you've offended me I'm not going to respond.
"anti-gun" people: Guns are mostly bad you buffoons!!
Repeat ad infinitum
|
Important in that regard is that not all of those are from the same person.
|
On September 08 2018 18:55 solidbebe wrote:
This thread:
"anti-gun" people: Guns are mostly bad you buffoons!!
"pro-gun" people: If you are just going to insult people we won't have a discussion.
"anti-gun" people: Okay then, these are our proposals, what do you think of them? What are your plans for stopping gun shootings?
"pro-gun" people: No you've offended me I'm not going to respond.
"anti-gun" people: Guns are mostly bad you buffoons!!
Repeat ad infinitum
well, what od you want, intelligent reasonable discussions?
|
|
|
On September 08 2018 22:18 Jumperer wrote:
The elites want to take guns away from the population so in the future(50-200 years) when they pull a 1984 no one would be able to resist. Now, guns are a problem but since there are way too many guns right now illegally and legally in the US it's difficult to simply restrict guns. Furthermore, Gun violence happens all the time in gun-free zones and gun-free countries.
Lastly, the root cause of gun violence stems from mental illness. You don't ban cars or driving just because some idiots killed someone via drunk driving. You solve that problem by preventing someone from drunk driving. Same with these mass shootings, improve society and implement social policy that deal with people with mental illness better rather than just giving them drugs 24/7.
However, if I were to start a new country I would probably ban guns.
do you have evidence to backup your claim about that being the intent of the "elites"? (and which elites anyways, there's a lot of elites that are pro-gun, which makes your statement straightforwardly false).
what are your sources for gun violence/mental illness link?
|
|
|
On September 08 2018 22:22 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2018 22:18 Jumperer wrote:
The elites want to take guns away from the population so in the future(50-200 years) when they pull a 1984 no one would be able to resist. Now, guns are a problem but since there are way too many guns right now illegally and legally in the US it's difficult to simply restrict guns. Furthermore, Gun violence happens all the time in gun-free zones and gun-free countries.
Lastly, the root cause of gun violence stems from mental illness. You don't ban cars or driving just because some idiots killed someone via drunk driving. You solve that problem by preventing someone from drunk driving. Same with these mass shootings, improve society and implement social policy that deal with people with mental illness better rather than just giving them drugs 24/7.
However, if I were to start a new country I would probably ban guns. do you have evidence to backup your claim about that being the intent of the "elites"? (and which elites anyways, there's a lot of elites that are pro-gun, which makes your statement straightforwardly false). what are your sources for gun violence/mental illness link?
Standard nonsensical conspiracy theories.
His comparison to driving doesnt make sense either.
Especially his line about shootings in gun fres countries is incredibly far from reality.
The US is one of the only countries this crap happens in.
It is true that mentality and culture might be connected, but thats only a small variable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
