|
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. |
|
|
On September 09 2018 03:52 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 03:41 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 03:03 Sermokala wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. Automatic weapons are illegal in america but you can get one if you go through ATF regulations. Medicine has controlled substances lists that make some illegal under most circumstances but legal under others. I mean cars are illegal unless you follow the proscribed regulations on them. But cars are regulated to the point where the vast majority of people who have one are safe, responsible owners who know how not to end a life on accident. And I don't see people complaining about how difficult it is to become a licensed driver. If you feel you need one, it's just what you do. I really don't think that makes the point you think it does. And the vast majority of people who own guns are responsible owners who know how to not end a life on accident. Unintentional shootings count for what two thousand a year? compared to the tens of thousands that die from traffic accidents?
More people own cars than own guns, by a large margin. People also spend much more time operating a vehicle than they do a gun. However, I don't wish to talk as though they are exactly the same. The primary purpose of a vehicle is not to kill people (or inflict injury, in the general sense). The fact that the numbers are only one order of magnitude apart is still pretty bad.
|
|
|
On September 09 2018 04:14 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 03:34 zlefin wrote:On September 09 2018 03:31 micronesia wrote:On September 09 2018 03:00 zlefin wrote:On September 09 2018 02:06 micronesia wrote:On September 09 2018 01:17 JelloKitty wrote: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 drunk people from driving. You can go one level deeper and attempt to reduce drinking rates. Same with these mass shootings, improve society and implement social policy that deal with people with mental illness better. If you want to cut a tree and stop it from growing, we need to identify and cut the root rather than cut the leafs repeatedly and hope the tree stop growing.
However, if I were to start a new country I would probably ban guns. I really hate the comparison between a car and a gun. One is for transportation, the other one is to kill. What matters isn't what you think they are for. What matters is why people, overall, want/need them balanced against the risk they pose. Cars are a very important part of society across the country, despite being dangerous, and so various precautions are taken but most people can still have cars and drive. Private gun ownership is very important to a large portion of society, although a smaller portion than is the case for cars. Guns are also dangerous and so precautions should be taken, including some that are currently not being taken in some/all places of the country. My point is not that the gun situation is A-ok, but that comparisons to cars in principle is fine. A lot of people want guns to be treated like cars in terms of licensing and required training. the relative importance seems quite disparate. There's a difference between people feeling something is important, and it actually being important. (i.e. people may feel that football is very important in their lives, but if it were removed the actual impact wouldn't be that big). Few people need guns to the extent that many people need cars. hence I conclude that, while there is some merit to a car comparison, there's also more than enough room to make very inapt comparisons. as many pro-gun folks ignore the vast difference in average need of guns as compared to cars. especially since here, the context is you defending jumperer. First of all, I'm not defending jumperer. I am discussing a point made by JelloKitty. The fact that inapt comparisons can be made between cars and guns is not relevant to the point I was making. Anything that is non-identical to cars can be compared in an inapt manner. That doesn't mean by default we should avoid comparing that thing to cars. There are plenty of good comparisons that can be made between guns and cars, such as a couple of examples I mentioned in my previous post. a point that jello made in direct response to jumperer, and that is part of the quote chain where you entered. so in context you are, to an extent, defending the aptness of jumperers comparison. it might not be your intent; what with how complicated communication is, but you are in fact doing so to an extent. the other issue ofc is the point that inapt comparisons are a common problem made in this context, so it's one that bears being extra careful with. your comparisons also have the issue that you pointedly ignored the vast discrepancy in need between the two, even after your next reply wherein it had already been pointed out. Let me get this straight. If jumperer says "Anyone who defends me is hitler," JelloKitty responds with "no, 1+1=3", and then I respond with "actually 1+1 is 2, not 3," I am to an extent defending jumperer? Somehow my intention to correct misconceptions about math resulted in me admitting I am Hitler. That is obviously ridiculous. The only reason why we are even having this seemingly pointless discussion is because you tried to discredit my point somewhat by pointing to what jumperer said, even though it didn't affect my point at all. I suggest you drop this portion of the conversation in case your want to argue for the sake of arguing. I fully agree with you, in principle, about inapt comparisons being a concern and something to try to avoid, so long as we all recognize that it is generally okay to make comparisons. If you now want to go to a separate topic of questioning whether my specific comparisons were good or not, we can, but that neither supports or disproves my overall point I was making when I entered into the conversation. Personally I just don't agree with your specific contention, but since I don't specifically need to defend it in order for my overall point to stand, I'm not going to.
that is an inapt comparison and you know it. and frankly, it's VERY rude of you to post so discourteously when you know you're so doing.
We're both very pedantic, and I can appreciate that. it also means we both know how to engage in a very high degree of precision, and you're willfully using flawed arguments that would not hold up to either of our own standards of pedantic scrutiny.
but a JelK response like you describe would be a complete non-sequitur; whereas the one that actually occurred establishes a clear context, wherein your interjection could reasonably be construed as being in support of jumperer's position. you also pointedly ignored my statement that while it may not have been your intent, your statement could nonetheless be justifiably regarded as a defense of jumperer. You should not completely ignore my point when making your counterpoints, and you did.
you're the one who should drop the conversation, you interjected poorly and thoughtlessly, without regard for how it would appear, and now you're doubling down on that in an unsound way, while oft ignoring my points.
you're also ignoring how complicated communication is, and how people are perceived, and the reasonable ways things can be alternately perceived; and that such matters since there are a large number of people in the thread who are allowed to engage in intentionally deceptive communication, which means these details matter. i.e. unless you're going to enforce higher standards (which you've proven you won't) then subtle details of how people respond and interject and use rhetoric matter. you did not include any disclaimer to separate yourself from jumperer's remarks, and you interjected directly into a pointed discussion on that. so it's reasonable to infer a stance based on that.
it's a problem myself I have faced many times; wherein I correct something, only for it to cause problems/disputes with me because it wasn' clear I was narrowly focused on some specific aspect, and trying to avoid the larger issue. It's something we both need to work on and recognize. This is a common problem that occurs when you interject into an existing conversation which establishes context.
|
United States24690 Posts
I'm sorry you misunderstood that I was not talking about jumperer's post when I discussed what JelloKitty said.
|
On September 09 2018 05:02 micronesia wrote:
I'm sorry you misunderstood that I was not talking about jumperer's post when I discussed what JelloKitty said.
I'm sorry you fail to understand that you spoke poorly when you interjected. and that the problem is not just my misunderstanding, but also you speaking in a way that's easily misunderstood.
reflecting back your non-apology apology that fails to address the others' points. I know it's brusque, but it's important.
|
On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: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? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it.
I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say?
EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there?
|
On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: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? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say? EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there?
Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal".
|
On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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!
[quote]
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? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say? EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there? Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal".
I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal?
|
On September 09 2018 05:03 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 05:02 micronesia wrote:
I'm sorry you misunderstood that I was not talking about jumperer's post when I discussed what JelloKitty said. I'm sorry you fail to understand that you spoke poorly when you interjected. and that the problem is not just my misunderstanding, but also you speaking in a way that's easily misunderstood. reflecting back your non-apology apology that fails to address the others' points. I know it's brusque, but it's important.
Bro, he just gave a very passive and diplomatic answer to your + Show Spoiler +On September 09 2018 04:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 04:14 micronesia wrote:On September 09 2018 03:34 zlefin wrote:On September 09 2018 03:31 micronesia wrote:On September 09 2018 03:00 zlefin wrote:On September 09 2018 02:06 micronesia wrote:On September 09 2018 01:17 JelloKitty wrote: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 drunk people from driving. You can go one level deeper and attempt to reduce drinking rates. Same with these mass shootings, improve society and implement social policy that deal with people with mental illness better. If you want to cut a tree and stop it from growing, we need to identify and cut the root rather than cut the leafs repeatedly and hope the tree stop growing.
However, if I were to start a new country I would probably ban guns. I really hate the comparison between a car and a gun. One is for transportation, the other one is to kill. What matters isn't what you think they are for. What matters is why people, overall, want/need them balanced against the risk they pose. Cars are a very important part of society across the country, despite being dangerous, and so various precautions are taken but most people can still have cars and drive. Private gun ownership is very important to a large portion of society, although a smaller portion than is the case for cars. Guns are also dangerous and so precautions should be taken, including some that are currently not being taken in some/all places of the country. My point is not that the gun situation is A-ok, but that comparisons to cars in principle is fine. A lot of people want guns to be treated like cars in terms of licensing and required training. the relative importance seems quite disparate. There's a difference between people feeling something is important, and it actually being important. (i.e. people may feel that football is very important in their lives, but if it were removed the actual impact wouldn't be that big). Few people need guns to the extent that many people need cars. hence I conclude that, while there is some merit to a car comparison, there's also more than enough room to make very inapt comparisons. as many pro-gun folks ignore the vast difference in average need of guns as compared to cars. especially since here, the context is you defending jumperer. First of all, I'm not defending jumperer. I am discussing a point made by JelloKitty. The fact that inapt comparisons can be made between cars and guns is not relevant to the point I was making. Anything that is non-identical to cars can be compared in an inapt manner. That doesn't mean by default we should avoid comparing that thing to cars. There are plenty of good comparisons that can be made between guns and cars, such as a couple of examples I mentioned in my previous post. a point that jello made in direct response to jumperer, and that is part of the quote chain where you entered. so in context you are, to an extent, defending the aptness of jumperers comparison. it might not be your intent; what with how complicated communication is, but you are in fact doing so to an extent. the other issue ofc is the point that inapt comparisons are a common problem made in this context, so it's one that bears being extra careful with. your comparisons also have the issue that you pointedly ignored the vast discrepancy in need between the two, even after your next reply wherein it had already been pointed out. Let me get this straight. If jumperer says "Anyone who defends me is hitler," JelloKitty responds with "no, 1+1=3", and then I respond with "actually 1+1 is 2, not 3," I am to an extent defending jumperer? Somehow my intention to correct misconceptions about math resulted in me admitting I am Hitler. That is obviously ridiculous. The only reason why we are even having this seemingly pointless discussion is because you tried to discredit my point somewhat by pointing to what jumperer said, even though it didn't affect my point at all. I suggest you drop this portion of the conversation in case your want to argue for the sake of arguing. I fully agree with you, in principle, about inapt comparisons being a concern and something to try to avoid, so long as we all recognize that it is generally okay to make comparisons. If you now want to go to a separate topic of questioning whether my specific comparisons were good or not, we can, but that neither supports or disproves my overall point I was making when I entered into the conversation. Personally I just don't agree with your specific contention, but since I don't specifically need to defend it in order for my overall point to stand, I'm not going to. that is an inapt comparison and you know it. and frankly, it's VERY rude of you to post so discourteously when you know you're so doing. We're both very pedantic, and I can appreciate that. it also means we both know how to engage in a very high degree of precision, and you're willfully using flawed arguments that would not hold up to either of our own standards of pedantic scrutiny. but a JelK response like you describe would be a complete non-sequitur; whereas the one that actually occurred establishes a clear context, wherein your interjection could reasonably be construed as being in support of jumperer's position. you also pointedly ignored my statement that while it may not have been your intent, your statement could nonetheless be justifiably regarded as a defense of jumperer. You should not completely ignore my point when making your counterpoints, and you did. you're the one who should drop the conversation, you interjected poorly and thoughtlessly, without regard for how it would appear, and now you're doubling down on that in an unsound way, while oft ignoring my points. you're also ignoring how complicated communication is, and how people are perceived, and the reasonable ways things can be alternately perceived; and that such matters since there are a large number of people in the thread who are allowed to engage in intentionally deceptive communication, which means these details matter. i.e. unless you're going to enforce higher standards (which you've proven you won't) then subtle details of how people respond and interject and use rhetoric matter. you did not include any disclaimer to separate yourself from jumperer's remarks, and you interjected directly into a pointed discussion on that. so it's reasonable to infer a stance based on that. it's a problem myself I have faced many times; wherein I correct something, only for it to cause problems/disputes with me because it wasn' clear I was narrowly focused on some specific aspect, and trying to avoid the larger issue. It's something we both need to work on and recognize. This is a common problem that occurs when you interject into an existing conversation which establishes context.
Most people, after hearing + Show Spoiler +this is an inapt comparison and you know it
it's very rude of you
post so discourteously
you're willfully using flawed arguments
not hold up to .. our own standards of pedantic scrutiny
you pointedly ignored my statement
you should not completely ignore my point
you're the one who should drop the conversation
you interjected poorly and thoughtlessly
without regard for how it would appear
now you're doubling down
in an unsound way
ignoring my points
you're ignoring how complicated communication is...
you've proven you won't [enforce higher standards]
JelloKitty specifically said how he hated the comparison himself and that's the only thing micronesia took issue with and laid out the reasons where the comparison matters. Nobody's out here persecuting you in some "problem myself I have faced many times."
|
On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say? EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there? Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal?
I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude".
|
On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:28 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 04:23 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
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? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say? EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there? Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude".
Now I'm not sure what your point was at all?
|
On September 09 2018 03:03 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: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? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. Automatic weapons are illegal in america but you can get one if you go through ATF regulations. Medicine has controlled substances lists that make some illegal under most circumstances but legal under others. I mean cars are illegal unless you follow the proscribed regulations on them. If you can buy automatic weapons if you run through some regulation then they are not illegal. They are regulated. If you can buy some medicine but not others from the local pharmacy then medicine is not illegal. it is regulated. If by law, people can drive a car with a drivers license, then a car is not illegal. It is regulated. No one will ever describe a car or motorised vehicle as illegal. So it is with automatic weapon, and medicine, so it is with cars or motorised vehicles. It's absurd to argue otherwise, except by using your own personal definitions.
|
|
|
On September 09 2018 07:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 03:03 Sermokala wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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!
[quote]
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? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. Automatic weapons are illegal in america but you can get one if you go through ATF regulations. Medicine has controlled substances lists that make some illegal under most circumstances but legal under others. I mean cars are illegal unless you follow the proscribed regulations on them. If you can buy automatic weapons if you run through some regulation then they are not illegal. They are regulated. If you can buy some medicine but not others from the local pharmacy then medicine is not illegal. it is regulated. If by law, people can drive a car with a drivers license, then a car is not illegal. It is regulated. No one will ever describe a car or motorised vehicle as illegal. So it is with automatic weapon, and medicine, so it is with cars or motorised vehicles. It's absurd to argue otherwise, except by using your own personal definitions.
You can shoot someone if you jump through the right hoops, does that mean it isn't illegal but regulated?
|
On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:28 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
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? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say? EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there? Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all?
My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit.
On September 09 2018 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 07:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 09 2018 03:03 Sermokala wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. Automatic weapons are illegal in america but you can get one if you go through ATF regulations. Medicine has controlled substances lists that make some illegal under most circumstances but legal under others. I mean cars are illegal unless you follow the proscribed regulations on them. If you can buy automatic weapons if you run through some regulation then they are not illegal. They are regulated. If you can buy some medicine but not others from the local pharmacy then medicine is not illegal. it is regulated. If by law, people can drive a car with a drivers license, then a car is not illegal. It is regulated. No one will ever describe a car or motorised vehicle as illegal. So it is with automatic weapon, and medicine, so it is with cars or motorised vehicles. It's absurd to argue otherwise, except by using your own personal definitions. You can shoot someone if you jump through the right hoops, does that mean it isn't illegal but regulated?
You know, for someone saying this is a silly thing to be arsed about, isn't that exactly what you're doing right now?
|
On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 04:41 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
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? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say? EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there? Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit.
Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do.
You know, for someone saying this is a silly thing to be arsed about, isn't that exactly what you're doing right now?
I'd actually like to see things get better and this kind of argumentation from others who also want to see improvements is too terrible to not point out.
|
On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
[quote]
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? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say? EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there? Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do.
Then falling 1 foot and falling 10 feet should be the same to you then, because they're both you falling downward due to gravity.
Degree. Nuance. The two things are not the same.
|
On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 06:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
[quote]
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? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say? EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there? Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. Show nested quote +You know, for someone saying this is a silly thing to be arsed about, isn't that exactly what you're doing right now? I'd actually like to see things get better and this kind of argumentation from others who also want to see improvements is too terrible to not point out.
He wants his argument to be taken only to his logical extremes, but not to your logical extremes. It's like his definition of regulations; sure he thinks he can get to a valid point, but he's unwilling to jump through the hoops required to make it valid.
|
On September 09 2018 08:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 07:52 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On September 09 2018 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 09 2018 02:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 08 2018 07:28 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
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? Ha! You make a post asking to be talked to under the assumption that you aren't an idiot after this post, yet you write demonstratably downright falsehoods, such as that automatic weapons are regulated and illegal, and medicine are regulated and illegal. it can only be true if you operate under your own personal definition of words. It's amazing the sheer gall of it. I'm confused, they are regulated and illegal to possess if not in accordance with those regulations? How is that not accurate to say? EDIT: How long has that mod note been up there? Isn't that generally how regulations work? That operating outside them is illegal? Therefore it makes way more sense to say "regulated but still legal" than "regulated and illegal". I think it's a silly thing to arsed about. For example, shooting someone, is that regulated but still legal or regulated and illegal? I mean, I agree. I wasn't the one trying to equivocate and say "well since you can technically say it's illegal, you're fuckin' wrong dude". Now I'm not sure what your point was at all? My point was that something being illegal is not the same as being regulated. Saying you want something to be regulated, therefore, is not the same as saying you want that thing to be illegal. Sermo then came in and tried to equivocate, saying they are the same thing, and therefore if you want regulation on something, you must also want that thing to be illegal. Which I'm saying, in a very roundabout manner, is a crock of shit. Okay, then I disagree for the reason I've already mentioned. For all intents and purposes "regulation" or "making illegal" are the same in that they merely determine for whom and under what circumstances something is legal to do. You know, for someone saying this is a silly thing to be arsed about, isn't that exactly what you're doing right now? I'd actually like to see things get better and this kind of argumentation from others who also want to see improvements is too terrible to not point out. He wants his argument to be taken only to his logical extremes, but not to your logical extremes. It's like his definition of regulations; sure he thinks he can get to a valid point, but he's unwilling to jump through the hoops required to make it valid.
If you want to argue with me, why not do so directly, instead of taking a potshot from what's basically the peanut gallery? If my argument isn't valid, please go into why that's the case. Otherwise, I don't see what you're adding to the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
