|
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 November 15 2018 21:47 superstartran wrote:...You criticize the process of the Constitution, now shift your argument to 'the attitudes' towards the Constitution. Shifting goal posts 101.
Wrong. Throughout this entire discussion my point has been about the attitude which the US has towards its Constitution and how this has negative effects on the state of discourse. Your attempts to interpret my posts as being against the existence of enforced individual rights, "country hating", et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, are not appreciated.
The processes surrounding the Constitution (and in particular the hullabaloo surrounding its interpretation) are to a significant degree (although not by any means entirely + Show Spoiler +obviously some of it is defined by the Constitution itself, although if the people felt strongly enough I expect those could be changed also
|
I think what people mean with "fetish for the constitution" is that sometimes, it appears as if americans don't value the constitution because of what it does, but they value what it does because it is the constitution that does it.
The difference is the position. "The constitution is good because it does good stuff" is a good idea. "Stuff must be like this because the constitution says it" is dogma.
The former allows for change in the constitution if we thing differently about what "good stuff" is. The latter declares the constitution to be basically the word of god.
I think a holy book is a good simile for this. It is the difference between seeing the bible, or whatever else holy book, as a book that shows good ethics, and believing that whatever the bible says automatically is good ethics because the bible says it.
|
|
|
On November 15 2018 22:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 13:07 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 12:46 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 12:18 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 10:59 JimmiC wrote:
Danglars I think you spend more time posting about why you should not or will not trust someone then anything else. I’m sure we’ve all profited by this recital of why to distrust my distrust. How much of this European ideal of kissing the chains that bind them is self-aware performance versus sincere belief? Free speech, yet fine people for bad jokes. Individual rights but take away the right of self defense of person, family, and property with a gun. It’s positively Orwellian to choose safety and security above liberty, and double back once again to call it liberty and freedom. This has got to be some kind of corollary to the “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe” rule. It is your party that made decency laws, forced delays on live tv for the purpose of censorship, women lose freedo. Of their bodies and so on. You want freedom only for things you agree with. Yeah yeah and somehow women in the womb die, and that isn’t losing freedom. It’s just the lucky women that don’t get killed before delivery that get to enjoy their freedom. It’s the same spin, different case. But since we’re getting a little far afield, I won’t continue this line of thought. Same old argument with guns, when you give "freedom" to gun owners you take away the freedom to be safe for others. And a around and around you go. I notice you stayed far away from the "decency" laws. We could also get into the freedom to protest, more "freedom" the party you worship doesn't support. As I mentioned the freedom argument only surfaces with very specific things that your party tells you are musts!
Its why this argument is so circular and impossible. People want to portray this as freedom vs safety.
The reality is different. Its actually about freedom for the minority vs the safety of everyone.
|
On November 15 2018 22:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 13:07 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 12:46 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 12:18 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 10:59 JimmiC wrote:
Danglars I think you spend more time posting about why you should not or will not trust someone then anything else. I’m sure we’ve all profited by this recital of why to distrust my distrust. How much of this European ideal of kissing the chains that bind them is self-aware performance versus sincere belief? Free speech, yet fine people for bad jokes. Individual rights but take away the right of self defense of person, family, and property with a gun. It’s positively Orwellian to choose safety and security above liberty, and double back once again to call it liberty and freedom. This has got to be some kind of corollary to the “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe” rule. It is your party that made decency laws, forced delays on live tv for the purpose of censorship, women lose freedo. Of their bodies and so on. You want freedom only for things you agree with. Yeah yeah and somehow women in the womb die, and that isn’t losing freedom. It’s just the lucky women that don’t get killed before delivery that get to enjoy their freedom. It’s the same spin, different case. But since we’re getting a little far afield, I won’t continue this line of thought. Same old argument with guns, when you give "freedom" to gun owners you take away the freedom to be safe for others. And a around and around you go. I notice you stayed far away from the "decency" laws. We could also get into the freedom to protest, more "freedom" the party you worship doesn't support. As I mentioned the freedom argument only surfaces with very specific things that your party tells you are musts!
Freedom to be safe. No wonder other freedoms are crumbling across the pond. Freedom to be safe. Indeed.
|
Folks in Europe are pretty free of mass shootings and being shot by police. From all reports, it sounds pretty dope.
|
On November 15 2018 22:59 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 22:57 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 13:07 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 12:46 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 12:18 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 10:59 JimmiC wrote:
Danglars I think you spend more time posting about why you should not or will not trust someone then anything else. I’m sure we’ve all profited by this recital of why to distrust my distrust. How much of this European ideal of kissing the chains that bind them is self-aware performance versus sincere belief? Free speech, yet fine people for bad jokes. Individual rights but take away the right of self defense of person, family, and property with a gun. It’s positively Orwellian to choose safety and security above liberty, and double back once again to call it liberty and freedom. This has got to be some kind of corollary to the “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe” rule. It is your party that made decency laws, forced delays on live tv for the purpose of censorship, women lose freedo. Of their bodies and so on. You want freedom only for things you agree with. Yeah yeah and somehow women in the womb die, and that isn’t losing freedom. It’s just the lucky women that don’t get killed before delivery that get to enjoy their freedom. It’s the same spin, different case. But since we’re getting a little far afield, I won’t continue this line of thought. Same old argument with guns, when you give "freedom" to gun owners you take away the freedom to be safe for others. And a around and around you go. I notice you stayed far away from the "decency" laws. We could also get into the freedom to protest, more "freedom" the party you worship doesn't support. As I mentioned the freedom argument only surfaces with very specific things that your party tells you are musts! Its why this argument is so circular and impossible. People want to portray this as freedom vs safety. The reality is different. Its actually about freedom for the minority vs the safety of everyone.
One of the funny things about rights is they don’t really care about how many choose to exercise them ... they are properly insulated from “the safety of everyone” whether it be religious freedom, free speech, or self defense. And it is oppression for the minority to purchase a form of safety for the majority, properly put.
|
|
|
|
|
On November 15 2018 23:11 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 23:02 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 22:57 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 13:07 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 12:46 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 12:18 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 10:59 JimmiC wrote:
Danglars I think you spend more time posting about why you should not or will not trust someone then anything else. I’m sure we’ve all profited by this recital of why to distrust my distrust. How much of this European ideal of kissing the chains that bind them is self-aware performance versus sincere belief? Free speech, yet fine people for bad jokes. Individual rights but take away the right of self defense of person, family, and property with a gun. It’s positively Orwellian to choose safety and security above liberty, and double back once again to call it liberty and freedom. This has got to be some kind of corollary to the “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe” rule. It is your party that made decency laws, forced delays on live tv for the purpose of censorship, women lose freedo. Of their bodies and so on. You want freedom only for things you agree with. Yeah yeah and somehow women in the womb die, and that isn’t losing freedom. It’s just the lucky women that don’t get killed before delivery that get to enjoy their freedom. It’s the same spin, different case. But since we’re getting a little far afield, I won’t continue this line of thought. Same old argument with guns, when you give "freedom" to gun owners you take away the freedom to be safe for others. And a around and around you go. I notice you stayed far away from the "decency" laws. We could also get into the freedom to protest, more "freedom" the party you worship doesn't support. As I mentioned the freedom argument only surfaces with very specific things that your party tells you are musts! Freedom to be safe. No wonder other freedoms are crumbling across the pond. Freedom to be safe. Indeed. And another quip and dodge by Danglars! Your moves are becoming so predictable, it is becoming super boring to engage with you. You snipe in on someone else's comment about how disingenuous they are being, some one engages you and you get as disingenuous as you can be. Rinse and repeat. I hope you are super against the patriot act and all the security measures that came with it. Because you're really in a major blind spot if you think you have more freedom then those across the pond!
Freedom to be safe is the nuclear bomb of all dodges. You can oppress your entire citizenry under arguments springing from your freedom to be safe. Advocate all your security measures you want! Make your arguments to restrict freedoms and argue they're necessary all you wish! Just don't presume we're all dumb enough to bow to newspeak freedoms and forget what individual rights really are.
|
On November 15 2018 23:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 23:11 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 23:02 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 22:57 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 13:07 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 12:46 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 12:18 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 10:59 JimmiC wrote:
Danglars I think you spend more time posting about why you should not or will not trust someone then anything else. I’m sure we’ve all profited by this recital of why to distrust my distrust. How much of this European ideal of kissing the chains that bind them is self-aware performance versus sincere belief? Free speech, yet fine people for bad jokes. Individual rights but take away the right of self defense of person, family, and property with a gun. It’s positively Orwellian to choose safety and security above liberty, and double back once again to call it liberty and freedom. This has got to be some kind of corollary to the “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe” rule. It is your party that made decency laws, forced delays on live tv for the purpose of censorship, women lose freedo. Of their bodies and so on. You want freedom only for things you agree with. Yeah yeah and somehow women in the womb die, and that isn’t losing freedom. It’s just the lucky women that don’t get killed before delivery that get to enjoy their freedom. It’s the same spin, different case. But since we’re getting a little far afield, I won’t continue this line of thought. Same old argument with guns, when you give "freedom" to gun owners you take away the freedom to be safe for others. And a around and around you go. I notice you stayed far away from the "decency" laws. We could also get into the freedom to protest, more "freedom" the party you worship doesn't support. As I mentioned the freedom argument only surfaces with very specific things that your party tells you are musts! Freedom to be safe. No wonder other freedoms are crumbling across the pond. Freedom to be safe. Indeed. And another quip and dodge by Danglars! Your moves are becoming so predictable, it is becoming super boring to engage with you. You snipe in on someone else's comment about how disingenuous they are being, some one engages you and you get as disingenuous as you can be. Rinse and repeat. I hope you are super against the patriot act and all the security measures that came with it. Because you're really in a major blind spot if you think you have more freedom then those across the pond! Freedom to be safe is the nuclear bomb of all dodges. You can oppress your entire citizenry under arguments springing from your freedom to be safe. Advocate all your security measures you want! Make your arguments to restrict freedoms and argue they're necessary all you wish! Just don't presume we're all dumb enough to bow to newspeak freedoms and forget what individual rights really are.
The real question is how you manage the trade-off between freedom and public safety. You seem to be working under the assumption that public safety should never infringe on any freedom at all. Can you see how people might disagree with that?
I'm not free to make a bomb at home, and for good reason, its fucking dangerous to do that. So there's a trade off, I agree not to make any bombs, and everyone is safer.
You can portray Europeans as happy to give away freedoms all you want, but the freedom to have a deadly weapon, whether its a gun or a bomb, just isn't something that most people want, so the resulting lack of safety becomes more heavily weighted in the argument.
In the US, it seems more people want to be armed, but I still think if you weigh that particular freedom against public safety it could go either way.
|
|
|
On November 15 2018 23:26 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 23:21 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 23:11 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 23:02 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 22:57 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 13:07 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 12:46 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 12:18 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 10:59 JimmiC wrote:
Danglars I think you spend more time posting about why you should not or will not trust someone then anything else. I’m sure we’ve all profited by this recital of why to distrust my distrust. How much of this European ideal of kissing the chains that bind them is self-aware performance versus sincere belief? Free speech, yet fine people for bad jokes. Individual rights but take away the right of self defense of person, family, and property with a gun. It’s positively Orwellian to choose safety and security above liberty, and double back once again to call it liberty and freedom. This has got to be some kind of corollary to the “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe” rule. It is your party that made decency laws, forced delays on live tv for the purpose of censorship, women lose freedo. Of their bodies and so on. You want freedom only for things you agree with. Yeah yeah and somehow women in the womb die, and that isn’t losing freedom. It’s just the lucky women that don’t get killed before delivery that get to enjoy their freedom. It’s the same spin, different case. But since we’re getting a little far afield, I won’t continue this line of thought. Same old argument with guns, when you give "freedom" to gun owners you take away the freedom to be safe for others. And a around and around you go. I notice you stayed far away from the "decency" laws. We could also get into the freedom to protest, more "freedom" the party you worship doesn't support. As I mentioned the freedom argument only surfaces with very specific things that your party tells you are musts! Freedom to be safe. No wonder other freedoms are crumbling across the pond. Freedom to be safe. Indeed. And another quip and dodge by Danglars! Your moves are becoming so predictable, it is becoming super boring to engage with you. You snipe in on someone else's comment about how disingenuous they are being, some one engages you and you get as disingenuous as you can be. Rinse and repeat. I hope you are super against the patriot act and all the security measures that came with it. Because you're really in a major blind spot if you think you have more freedom then those across the pond! Freedom to be safe is the nuclear bomb of all dodges. You can oppress your entire citizenry under arguments springing from your freedom to be safe. Advocate all your security measures you want! Make your arguments to restrict freedoms and argue they're necessary all you wish! Just don't presume we're all dumb enough to bow to newspeak freedoms and forget what individual rights really are. The real question is how you manage the trade-off between freedom and public safety. You seem to be working under the assumption that public safety should never infringe on any freedom at all. Can you see how people might disagree with that?I'm not free to make a bomb at home, and for good reason, its fucking dangerous to do that. So there's a trade off, I agree not to make any bombs, and everyone is safer. You can portray Europeans as happy to give away freedoms all you want, but the freedom to have a deadly weapon, whether its a gun or a bomb, just isn't something that most people want, so the resulting lack of safety becomes more heavily weighted in the argument. In the US, it seems more people want to be armed, but I still think if you weigh that particular freedom against public safety it could go either way.
Nope, nothing of the kind. And how can you seriously propose that I'm doing that? Applying for a carry permit is a trade-off in favor of public safety. It entails a background check, to limit your freedom to purchase a gun after a domestic violence conviction or involuntary commitment, in favor of public safety. The incitement to imminent violence limitation on free speech is a tradeoff to public safety. Falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic is another limitation on your right of free speech for public safety.
We disagree on what restrictions on your right to defend yourself with a gun are worthy compromises for public safety. Superstartran goes further than me in advocating for mandatory gun training classes. I don't like that tradeoff.
So don't go marching off thinking I'm the most absolute of the absolutists. I'm in favor of talking about the tradeoffs honestly and from both sides. I'm absolutely in favor of restricting your right to build a bomb. I'll talk about it in terms of not aiding your absolute right of self defense and in light of public safety. Okay?
|
On November 15 2018 23:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 23:21 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 23:11 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 23:02 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 22:57 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 13:07 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 12:46 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 12:18 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 10:59 JimmiC wrote:
Danglars I think you spend more time posting about why you should not or will not trust someone then anything else. I’m sure we’ve all profited by this recital of why to distrust my distrust. How much of this European ideal of kissing the chains that bind them is self-aware performance versus sincere belief? Free speech, yet fine people for bad jokes. Individual rights but take away the right of self defense of person, family, and property with a gun. It’s positively Orwellian to choose safety and security above liberty, and double back once again to call it liberty and freedom. This has got to be some kind of corollary to the “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe” rule. It is your party that made decency laws, forced delays on live tv for the purpose of censorship, women lose freedo. Of their bodies and so on. You want freedom only for things you agree with. Yeah yeah and somehow women in the womb die, and that isn’t losing freedom. It’s just the lucky women that don’t get killed before delivery that get to enjoy their freedom. It’s the same spin, different case. But since we’re getting a little far afield, I won’t continue this line of thought. Same old argument with guns, when you give "freedom" to gun owners you take away the freedom to be safe for others. And a around and around you go. I notice you stayed far away from the "decency" laws. We could also get into the freedom to protest, more "freedom" the party you worship doesn't support. As I mentioned the freedom argument only surfaces with very specific things that your party tells you are musts! Freedom to be safe. No wonder other freedoms are crumbling across the pond. Freedom to be safe. Indeed. And another quip and dodge by Danglars! Your moves are becoming so predictable, it is becoming super boring to engage with you. You snipe in on someone else's comment about how disingenuous they are being, some one engages you and you get as disingenuous as you can be. Rinse and repeat. I hope you are super against the patriot act and all the security measures that came with it. Because you're really in a major blind spot if you think you have more freedom then those across the pond! Freedom to be safe is the nuclear bomb of all dodges. You can oppress your entire citizenry under arguments springing from your freedom to be safe. Advocate all your security measures you want! Make your arguments to restrict freedoms and argue they're necessary all you wish! Just don't presume we're all dumb enough to bow to newspeak freedoms and forget what individual rights really are. Dodge dodge dodge, Patriot act was restricting far more personal freedoms then gun control legislation was. And for the 4th time what about those decency laws and so on. It is clear you don't care about freedom. You care about freedom when it comes to owning guns.
This is fruitless if you can't see "freedom to be safe" as a dodge. Whataboutism on the patriot act, and whatever point you're trying to make about decency laws is moving the goalposts. You haven't actually reached any well-spoken point after "haha distrust Danglars." You're going around in circles. Once you go "take away the freedom to be safe for others" you never go back, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
On November 16 2018 00:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 23:51 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 23:32 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 23:21 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 23:11 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 23:02 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 22:57 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 13:07 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 12:46 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 12:18 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I’m sure we’ve all profited by this recital of why to distrust my distrust.
How much of this European ideal of kissing the chains that bind them is self-aware performance versus sincere belief? Free speech, yet fine people for bad jokes. Individual rights but take away the right of self defense of person, family, and property with a gun. It’s positively Orwellian to choose safety and security above liberty, and double back once again to call it liberty and freedom. This has got to be some kind of corollary to the “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe” rule. It is your party that made decency laws, forced delays on live tv for the purpose of censorship, women lose freedo. Of their bodies and so on. You want freedom only for things you agree with. Yeah yeah and somehow women in the womb die, and that isn’t losing freedom. It’s just the lucky women that don’t get killed before delivery that get to enjoy their freedom. It’s the same spin, different case. But since we’re getting a little far afield, I won’t continue this line of thought. Same old argument with guns, when you give "freedom" to gun owners you take away the freedom to be safe for others. And a around and around you go. I notice you stayed far away from the "decency" laws. We could also get into the freedom to protest, more "freedom" the party you worship doesn't support. As I mentioned the freedom argument only surfaces with very specific things that your party tells you are musts! Freedom to be safe. No wonder other freedoms are crumbling across the pond. Freedom to be safe. Indeed. And another quip and dodge by Danglars! Your moves are becoming so predictable, it is becoming super boring to engage with you. You snipe in on someone else's comment about how disingenuous they are being, some one engages you and you get as disingenuous as you can be. Rinse and repeat. I hope you are super against the patriot act and all the security measures that came with it. Because you're really in a major blind spot if you think you have more freedom then those across the pond! Freedom to be safe is the nuclear bomb of all dodges. You can oppress your entire citizenry under arguments springing from your freedom to be safe. Advocate all your security measures you want! Make your arguments to restrict freedoms and argue they're necessary all you wish! Just don't presume we're all dumb enough to bow to newspeak freedoms and forget what individual rights really are. Dodge dodge dodge, Patriot act was restricting far more personal freedoms then gun control legislation was. And for the 4th time what about those decency laws and so on. It is clear you don't care about freedom. You care about freedom when it comes to owning guns. This is fruitless if you can't see "freedom to be safe" as a dodge. Whataboutism on the patriot act, and whatever point you're trying to make about decency laws is moving the goalposts. You haven't actually reached any well-spoken point after "haha distrust Danglars." You're going around in circles. Once you go "take away the freedom to be safe for others" you never go back, I suppose. I'm not doing anything of what you say. I'm forcing you to answer my full post before I answer yours. This is much like the PM where we agreed to answer each others questions. I answered yours and sent back mine, months later no reply. You cherry picking one comment from a multiple paragraph post is the equivalent of a reporter taking one sentence from a interview and commenting on it alone. The point I'm making is not moving the goalposts or whataboutism. I'm saying clearly that if freedom is your main concern why are you not consistent. I'm questioning your reasoning for your point. No fallacy here.
I don't really care that you describe your own whataboutism as a full post you're waiting for an answer on. I asked what was up with the European sentiment and got reflexive lashing out about decency laws (zero description) delays of live tv (zero description) and women lose freedom (those dead in the womb unavailable to comment, but no description). Classic whataboutism. You should start over if you're done with the tu quoque, as you're now suggesting.
On November 16 2018 00:15 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 23:45 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 23:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 15 2018 23:21 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 23:11 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 23:02 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 22:57 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 13:07 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 12:46 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 12:18 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I’m sure we’ve all profited by this recital of why to distrust my distrust.
How much of this European ideal of kissing the chains that bind them is self-aware performance versus sincere belief? Free speech, yet fine people for bad jokes. Individual rights but take away the right of self defense of person, family, and property with a gun. It’s positively Orwellian to choose safety and security above liberty, and double back once again to call it liberty and freedom. This has got to be some kind of corollary to the “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe” rule. It is your party that made decency laws, forced delays on live tv for the purpose of censorship, women lose freedo. Of their bodies and so on. You want freedom only for things you agree with. Yeah yeah and somehow women in the womb die, and that isn’t losing freedom. It’s just the lucky women that don’t get killed before delivery that get to enjoy their freedom. It’s the same spin, different case. But since we’re getting a little far afield, I won’t continue this line of thought. Same old argument with guns, when you give "freedom" to gun owners you take away the freedom to be safe for others. And a around and around you go. I notice you stayed far away from the "decency" laws. We could also get into the freedom to protest, more "freedom" the party you worship doesn't support. As I mentioned the freedom argument only surfaces with very specific things that your party tells you are musts! Freedom to be safe. No wonder other freedoms are crumbling across the pond. Freedom to be safe. Indeed. And another quip and dodge by Danglars! Your moves are becoming so predictable, it is becoming super boring to engage with you. You snipe in on someone else's comment about how disingenuous they are being, some one engages you and you get as disingenuous as you can be. Rinse and repeat. I hope you are super against the patriot act and all the security measures that came with it. Because you're really in a major blind spot if you think you have more freedom then those across the pond! Freedom to be safe is the nuclear bomb of all dodges. You can oppress your entire citizenry under arguments springing from your freedom to be safe. Advocate all your security measures you want! Make your arguments to restrict freedoms and argue they're necessary all you wish! Just don't presume we're all dumb enough to bow to newspeak freedoms and forget what individual rights really are. The real question is how you manage the trade-off between freedom and public safety. You seem to be working under the assumption that public safety should never infringe on any freedom at all. Can you see how people might disagree with that?I'm not free to make a bomb at home, and for good reason, its fucking dangerous to do that. So there's a trade off, I agree not to make any bombs, and everyone is safer. You can portray Europeans as happy to give away freedoms all you want, but the freedom to have a deadly weapon, whether its a gun or a bomb, just isn't something that most people want, so the resulting lack of safety becomes more heavily weighted in the argument. In the US, it seems more people want to be armed, but I still think if you weigh that particular freedom against public safety it could go either way. Nope, nothing of the kind. And how can you seriously propose that I'm doing that? Applying for a carry permit is a trade-off in favor of public safety. It entails a background check, to limit your freedom to purchase a gun after a domestic violence conviction or involuntary commitment, in favor of public safety. The incitement to imminent violence limitation on free speech is a tradeoff to public safety. Falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic is another limitation on your right of free speech for public safety. We disagree on what restrictions on your right to defend yourself with a gun are worthy compromises for public safety. Superstartran goes further than me in advocating for mandatory gun training classes. I don't like that tradeoff. So don't go marching off thinking I'm the most absolute of the absolutists. I'm in favor of talking about the tradeoffs honestly and from both sides. I'm absolutely in favor of restricting your right to build a bomb. I'll talk about it in terms of not aiding your absolute right of self defense and in light of public safety. Okay? The fundamental difference is you think that people carrying around firearms is good for public safety. Most people in the developed world don't believe this based on statistics and various other things that have been discussed over and over. What can be agreed is everyone thinks certain people should not be able to access weapons, and certain types of weapons should not be allowed. For example you agree bombs should not be allowed. So it is not about stopping all progress for fear of losing your "freedom" it is about coming up with a set of fair rules that make it hard for people who shouldn't have guns to not have them. This does require some sacrifice from people who are responsible. Much like everyone always sacrifices many of their freedoms to gain the right to drive a car and then has rules they have to follow once they do.
You're telling me what I think now? Please, that post was for Jockmcplop and he can answer it. You're way out of your league if you've gotta tell me what I think, and then argue with what you tell me I think.
|
On November 15 2018 23:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 23:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 15 2018 23:21 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 23:11 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 23:02 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 22:57 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 13:07 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 12:46 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 12:18 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 10:59 JimmiC wrote:
Danglars I think you spend more time posting about why you should not or will not trust someone then anything else. I’m sure we’ve all profited by this recital of why to distrust my distrust. How much of this European ideal of kissing the chains that bind them is self-aware performance versus sincere belief? Free speech, yet fine people for bad jokes. Individual rights but take away the right of self defense of person, family, and property with a gun. It’s positively Orwellian to choose safety and security above liberty, and double back once again to call it liberty and freedom. This has got to be some kind of corollary to the “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe” rule. It is your party that made decency laws, forced delays on live tv for the purpose of censorship, women lose freedo. Of their bodies and so on. You want freedom only for things you agree with. Yeah yeah and somehow women in the womb die, and that isn’t losing freedom. It’s just the lucky women that don’t get killed before delivery that get to enjoy their freedom. It’s the same spin, different case. But since we’re getting a little far afield, I won’t continue this line of thought. Same old argument with guns, when you give "freedom" to gun owners you take away the freedom to be safe for others. And a around and around you go. I notice you stayed far away from the "decency" laws. We could also get into the freedom to protest, more "freedom" the party you worship doesn't support. As I mentioned the freedom argument only surfaces with very specific things that your party tells you are musts! Freedom to be safe. No wonder other freedoms are crumbling across the pond. Freedom to be safe. Indeed. And another quip and dodge by Danglars! Your moves are becoming so predictable, it is becoming super boring to engage with you. You snipe in on someone else's comment about how disingenuous they are being, some one engages you and you get as disingenuous as you can be. Rinse and repeat. I hope you are super against the patriot act and all the security measures that came with it. Because you're really in a major blind spot if you think you have more freedom then those across the pond! Freedom to be safe is the nuclear bomb of all dodges. You can oppress your entire citizenry under arguments springing from your freedom to be safe. Advocate all your security measures you want! Make your arguments to restrict freedoms and argue they're necessary all you wish! Just don't presume we're all dumb enough to bow to newspeak freedoms and forget what individual rights really are. The real question is how you manage the trade-off between freedom and public safety. You seem to be working under the assumption that public safety should never infringe on any freedom at all. Can you see how people might disagree with that?I'm not free to make a bomb at home, and for good reason, its fucking dangerous to do that. So there's a trade off, I agree not to make any bombs, and everyone is safer. You can portray Europeans as happy to give away freedoms all you want, but the freedom to have a deadly weapon, whether its a gun or a bomb, just isn't something that most people want, so the resulting lack of safety becomes more heavily weighted in the argument. In the US, it seems more people want to be armed, but I still think if you weigh that particular freedom against public safety it could go either way. Nope, nothing of the kind. And how can you seriously propose that I'm doing that? Applying for a carry permit is a trade-off in favor of public safety. It entails a background check, to limit your freedom to purchase a gun after a domestic violence conviction or involuntary commitment, in favor of public safety. The incitement to imminent violence limitation on free speech is a tradeoff to public safety. Falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic is another limitation on your right of free speech for public safety. We disagree on what restrictions on your right to defend yourself with a gun are worthy compromises for public safety. Superstartran goes further than me in advocating for mandatory gun training classes. I don't like that tradeoff. So don't go marching off thinking I'm the most absolute of the absolutists. I'm in favor of talking about the tradeoffs honestly and from both sides. I'm absolutely in favor of restricting your right to build a bomb. I'll talk about it in terms of not aiding your absolute right of self defense and in light of public safety. Okay?
Fair enough I exaggerated your position, it wasn't out of malice just misunderstanding of where you are on this. You have vehemently defended many things on grounds of individual liberty so I just assumed.
So we've reached the crux of the disagreement I think. Its simply a matter of where we draw the line when it comes to public safety vs liberty. I think the biggest part of my opinion in this is that the benefits of mass gun ownership are so trivial (for many people - especially those who don't need to defend themselves from wildlife) compared to the huge public safety downside.
|
|
|
On November 16 2018 01:51 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2018 00:29 Danglars wrote:On November 16 2018 00:08 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 23:51 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 23:32 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 23:21 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 23:11 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 23:02 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 22:57 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 13:07 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Yeah yeah and somehow women in the womb die, and that isn’t losing freedom. It’s just the lucky women that don’t get killed before delivery that get to enjoy their freedom. It’s the same spin, different case. But since we’re getting a little far afield, I won’t continue this line of thought. Same old argument with guns, when you give "freedom" to gun owners you take away the freedom to be safe for others. And a around and around you go. I notice you stayed far away from the "decency" laws. We could also get into the freedom to protest, more "freedom" the party you worship doesn't support. As I mentioned the freedom argument only surfaces with very specific things that your party tells you are musts! Freedom to be safe. No wonder other freedoms are crumbling across the pond. Freedom to be safe. Indeed. And another quip and dodge by Danglars! Your moves are becoming so predictable, it is becoming super boring to engage with you. You snipe in on someone else's comment about how disingenuous they are being, some one engages you and you get as disingenuous as you can be. Rinse and repeat. I hope you are super against the patriot act and all the security measures that came with it. Because you're really in a major blind spot if you think you have more freedom then those across the pond! Freedom to be safe is the nuclear bomb of all dodges. You can oppress your entire citizenry under arguments springing from your freedom to be safe. Advocate all your security measures you want! Make your arguments to restrict freedoms and argue they're necessary all you wish! Just don't presume we're all dumb enough to bow to newspeak freedoms and forget what individual rights really are. Dodge dodge dodge, Patriot act was restricting far more personal freedoms then gun control legislation was. And for the 4th time what about those decency laws and so on. It is clear you don't care about freedom. You care about freedom when it comes to owning guns. This is fruitless if you can't see "freedom to be safe" as a dodge. Whataboutism on the patriot act, and whatever point you're trying to make about decency laws is moving the goalposts. You haven't actually reached any well-spoken point after "haha distrust Danglars." You're going around in circles. Once you go "take away the freedom to be safe for others" you never go back, I suppose. I'm not doing anything of what you say. I'm forcing you to answer my full post before I answer yours. This is much like the PM where we agreed to answer each others questions. I answered yours and sent back mine, months later no reply. You cherry picking one comment from a multiple paragraph post is the equivalent of a reporter taking one sentence from a interview and commenting on it alone. The point I'm making is not moving the goalposts or whataboutism. I'm saying clearly that if freedom is your main concern why are you not consistent. I'm questioning your reasoning for your point. No fallacy here. I don't really care that you describe your own whataboutism as a full post you're waiting for an answer on. I asked what was up with the European sentiment and got reflexive lashing out about decency laws (zero description) delays of live tv (zero description) and women lose freedom (those dead in the womb unavailable to comment, but no description). Classic whataboutism. You should start over if you're done with the tu quoque, as you're now suggesting. On November 16 2018 00:15 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 23:45 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 23:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 15 2018 23:21 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 23:11 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 23:02 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 22:57 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 13:07 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Yeah yeah and somehow women in the womb die, and that isn’t losing freedom. It’s just the lucky women that don’t get killed before delivery that get to enjoy their freedom. It’s the same spin, different case. But since we’re getting a little far afield, I won’t continue this line of thought. Same old argument with guns, when you give "freedom" to gun owners you take away the freedom to be safe for others. And a around and around you go. I notice you stayed far away from the "decency" laws. We could also get into the freedom to protest, more "freedom" the party you worship doesn't support. As I mentioned the freedom argument only surfaces with very specific things that your party tells you are musts! Freedom to be safe. No wonder other freedoms are crumbling across the pond. Freedom to be safe. Indeed. And another quip and dodge by Danglars! Your moves are becoming so predictable, it is becoming super boring to engage with you. You snipe in on someone else's comment about how disingenuous they are being, some one engages you and you get as disingenuous as you can be. Rinse and repeat. I hope you are super against the patriot act and all the security measures that came with it. Because you're really in a major blind spot if you think you have more freedom then those across the pond! Freedom to be safe is the nuclear bomb of all dodges. You can oppress your entire citizenry under arguments springing from your freedom to be safe. Advocate all your security measures you want! Make your arguments to restrict freedoms and argue they're necessary all you wish! Just don't presume we're all dumb enough to bow to newspeak freedoms and forget what individual rights really are. The real question is how you manage the trade-off between freedom and public safety. You seem to be working under the assumption that public safety should never infringe on any freedom at all. Can you see how people might disagree with that?I'm not free to make a bomb at home, and for good reason, its fucking dangerous to do that. So there's a trade off, I agree not to make any bombs, and everyone is safer. You can portray Europeans as happy to give away freedoms all you want, but the freedom to have a deadly weapon, whether its a gun or a bomb, just isn't something that most people want, so the resulting lack of safety becomes more heavily weighted in the argument. In the US, it seems more people want to be armed, but I still think if you weigh that particular freedom against public safety it could go either way. Nope, nothing of the kind. And how can you seriously propose that I'm doing that? Applying for a carry permit is a trade-off in favor of public safety. It entails a background check, to limit your freedom to purchase a gun after a domestic violence conviction or involuntary commitment, in favor of public safety. The incitement to imminent violence limitation on free speech is a tradeoff to public safety. Falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic is another limitation on your right of free speech for public safety. We disagree on what restrictions on your right to defend yourself with a gun are worthy compromises for public safety. Superstartran goes further than me in advocating for mandatory gun training classes. I don't like that tradeoff. So don't go marching off thinking I'm the most absolute of the absolutists. I'm in favor of talking about the tradeoffs honestly and from both sides. I'm absolutely in favor of restricting your right to build a bomb. I'll talk about it in terms of not aiding your absolute right of self defense and in light of public safety. Okay? The fundamental difference is you think that people carrying around firearms is good for public safety. Most people in the developed world don't believe this based on statistics and various other things that have been discussed over and over. What can be agreed is everyone thinks certain people should not be able to access weapons, and certain types of weapons should not be allowed. For example you agree bombs should not be allowed. So it is not about stopping all progress for fear of losing your "freedom" it is about coming up with a set of fair rules that make it hard for people who shouldn't have guns to not have them. This does require some sacrifice from people who are responsible. Much like everyone always sacrifices many of their freedoms to gain the right to drive a car and then has rules they have to follow once they do. You're telling me what I think now? Please, that post was for Jockmcplop and he can answer it. You're way out of your league if you've gotta tell me what I think, and then argue with what you tell me I think. No i'm not, you just think this is debate class and are looking to score points. That is how you treat this message board and all discussions. I try to have conversations, very different.
Call it a conversation instead of a debate if you like, but you still run into the problem of not describing any points from the start (just the whatabout nub of it) and declaring “you think that people” to tell other people what they think and why. Maybe that’s your style of conversation, but you won’t find it equally effective on the internet with any degree of disagreement as you perhaps find it in your friend group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
