|
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 22:05 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +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 ) the way they are because your country's attitude towards its Constitution is the way it is, and they influence the state of discourse also, so some discussion of the processes surrounding the Constitution is apropos. Also, you bear a pretty large part of the responsibility for making it part of this discussion.
No one is saying that it's good because it's in the Constitution. Although the Founding Father's intention was to prevent a tyrannical government whether foreign or domestic from oppressing the people (thus allowing the general population to be armed as private citizens), it's modern day interpretation is to prevent others from intruding upon the unalienable rights of another citizen. The historical interpretations of previous court rulings, the draft history of the 2nd Amendment, and scholarly interpretation of the Constitution itself all lend towards this ruling.
At it's core, Americans believe that they have a fundamental right to defend themselves whether it's from tyranny, or from another individual that is attempting to intrude upon their rights of life, liberty, or property. This is based off of the historical drafts, the statements of the creators of the Constitution, and the historical court rulings regarding the 2nd Amendment.
So you can stop with the nonsensical American hating as though we worship the Constitution like it's a religious book. We simply view the Constitution as a great piece of legislative work that should be respected. If it wasn't such a great piece of legislative work, so many countries wouldn't have borrowed so many ideas from it, including your own country.
|
|
|
On November 16 2018 02:41 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2018 02:08 Danglars wrote:On November 16 2018 01:51 JimmiC wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. I've described a lot of points. You can't call every question you don't like to answer a "what a bout". Well you can, you have a do, it just doesn't win the way you think it does.
No win here. I only wondered if you were pursuing looking for answers when the effort was only asking what about decency laws, what about live TV, what about women’s “freedo” [sic]. If these were a matter of real inquiry, I wouldn’t have fill in the gaps of whatever you meant to say. Put another way, you just told me what I thought, and now ask me to tell you what you meant to ask. So unless you really want to pursue the line of “freedom to be safe,” I’m at a loss of what your point is. Is this your freedom to be safe from describing your points in full?
|
|
|
Searching for inconsistencies between the stances the two big parties have is a bullshit activity. You have to be really stupid to think hypocrisy in a two-party state is a good argument against one side or another.
Its even worse when you're the one trying to bring up an example of how the scorecard of one side is bad because of their hypocrisies and then try to make an argument about how the guy you're arguing with is bad for making a scorecard and trying to find gotchas when that's exactly what you're doing.
The decency laws for the FCC is a similar argument for gun control unless you're for the complete take away of guns or the complete freedom for guns you're in support of decency laws and are simply horse trading for whats okay to broadcast and whats not. You (I assume you're reasonable) don't want suicides and mutilated bodies to be broadcast on national television or have them broadcast on the open radio. You are therefore in favor of the FCC and in favor of the same decency laws, you are arguing against. But instead of being honest you're trying to find gotcha wedges to make yourself look better.
People need to stop being bullshit in this thread and accept that we're all just arguing for horse-trading on our freedoms vs security.
|
|
|
On November 16 2018 02:29 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 22:05 Aquanim wrote: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 ) the way they are because your country's attitude towards its Constitution is the way it is, and they influence the state of discourse also, so some discussion of the processes surrounding the Constitution is apropos. Also, you bear a pretty large part of the responsibility for making it part of this discussion. No one is saying that it's good because it's in the Constitution. Although the Founding Father's intention was to prevent a tyrannical government whether foreign or domestic from oppressing the people (thus allowing the general population to be armed as private citizens), it's modern day interpretation is to prevent others from intruding upon the unalienable rights of another citizen. The historical interpretations of previous court rulings, the draft history of the 2nd Amendment, and scholarly interpretation of the Constitution itself all lend towards this ruling. At it's core, Americans believe that they have a fundamental right to defend themselves whether it's from tyranny, or from another individual that is attempting to intrude upon their rights of life, liberty, or property. This is based off of the historical drafts, the statements of the creators of the Constitution, and the historical court rulings regarding the 2nd Amendment.
So, based on the bolded, you believe that you have a fundamental right which is entirely justified by
#1) the opinions of the creators of the Constitution
#2) interpretations of the aforementioned opinions
such that no further discussion is warranted.
I rest my case.
So you can stop with the nonsensical American hating as though we worship the Constitution like it's a religious book. We simply view the Constitution as a great piece of legislative work that should be respected. If it wasn't such a great piece of legislative work, so many countries wouldn't have borrowed so many ideas from it, including your own country.
For the record, I didn't make the religious allegory. I actively avoided it.
I'm comfortable with examining each part of the US Constitution on its merits. My country did not and has not felt the need for any equivalent to several parts of it. Notably including the Second Amendment.
|
On November 16 2018 09:16 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2018 02:29 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 22:05 Aquanim wrote: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 ) the way they are because your country's attitude towards its Constitution is the way it is, and they influence the state of discourse also, so some discussion of the processes surrounding the Constitution is apropos. Also, you bear a pretty large part of the responsibility for making it part of this discussion. No one is saying that it's good because it's in the Constitution. Although the Founding Father's intention was to prevent a tyrannical government whether foreign or domestic from oppressing the people (thus allowing the general population to be armed as private citizens), it's modern day interpretation is to prevent others from intruding upon the unalienable rights of another citizen. The historical interpretations of previous court rulings, the draft history of the 2nd Amendment, and scholarly interpretation of the Constitution itself all lend towards this ruling. At it's core, Americans believe that they have a fundamental right to defend themselves whether it's from tyranny, or from another individual that is attempting to intrude upon their rights of life, liberty, or property. This is based off of the historical drafts, the statements of the creators of the Constitution, and the historical court rulings regarding the 2nd Amendment. So, based on the bolded, you believe that you have a fundamental right which is entirely justified by #1) the opinions of the creators of the Constitution #2) interpretations of the aforementioned opinions such that no further discussion is warranted. I rest my case. Show nested quote +So you can stop with the nonsensical American hating as though we worship the Constitution like it's a religious book. We simply view the Constitution as a great piece of legislative work that should be respected. If it wasn't such a great piece of legislative work, so many countries wouldn't have borrowed so many ideas from it, including your own country. For the record, I didn't make the religious allegory. I actively avoided it. I'm comfortable with examining each part of the US Constitution on its merits. My country did not and has not felt the need for any equivalent to several parts of it. Notably including the Second Amendment.
Nice strawmanning bro. Based off of legal and historical pecedent, the 2nd amendment stands as is. I support it because I believe that one should have the fundamental right to defend one's self to defend yourself whether it's a foreign or domestic enemy. So yes, that means I agree with the foundinf principles of the Constitution, that doesn't mean I blindly believe in them.
And considering thus far no one has been able to explain how the US violent homicide rate continued to trend downwards despite a massive up tick in firearms, I will continue to defend that fundamental right. That doesn't mean I don't think there should be limits either.
You can stop the America hate now.
|
|
|
On November 16 2018 10:05 superstartran wrote:
Nice strawmanning bro. Based off of legal and historical pecedent, the 2nd amendment stands as is. I support it because I believe that one should have the fundamental right to defend one's self to defend yourself whether it's a foreign or domestic enemy. So yes, that means I agree with the foundinf principles of the Constitution, that doesn't mean I blindly believe in them.
This isn't what you said the first time, which leaves me with two possibilities:
#1) You weren't sufficiently precise with your first declaration (which you presumably intended to be definitive) so you've elaborated on it.
#2) You've realised that the truth you said the first time makes my point, not yours, so you're now prevaricating so that you don't lose an argument on the internet.
I don't really have any way of distinguishing between the two besides my estimation of your character, so I think our conversation has reached its conclusion.
|
On November 16 2018 10:25 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2018 10:05 superstartran wrote:
Nice strawmanning bro. Based off of legal and historical pecedent, the 2nd amendment stands as is. I support it because I believe that one should have the fundamental right to defend one's self to defend yourself whether it's a foreign or domestic enemy. So yes, that means I agree with the foundinf principles of the Constitution, that doesn't mean I blindly believe in them. This isn't what you said the first time, which leaves me with two possibilities: #1) You weren't sufficiently precise with your first declaration (which you presumably intended to be definitive) so you've elaborated on it. #2) You've realised that the truth you said the first time makes my point, not yours, so you're now prevaricating so that you don't lose an argument on the internet. I don't really have any way of distinguishing between the two besides my estimation of your character, so I think our conversation has reached its conclusion.
Yeah bro, keep up the America hating with your shifting goal posts. Go kick rocks.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Just so it's clear, this American in no way construes anything Aquanim has posted as anti-American. Not one bit.
|
Kinda ironic that one of his most continually used “arguments” is that since gun advocates get butthurt easily, if you offend them just one bit they have the right to ignore everything you say. Coming from a guy who repeatedly use harsh language to put down others when they’re just trying to make civil arguments makes him look like a hypocrite, maybe he should take his own advice and leave insults out of the mix.
I know we’re not convincing anybody here, but it’s good to see people with differing viewpoints offer their perspectives to avoid your so-called echo chamber. But when the endpoint arguments repeatedly consist of American exceptionalism and “other people are even bigger pieces of shit, that gives me an excuse to stay a medium piece of shit” aka keep status quo/do nothing (which says a lot about one’s character), I can see why some gave up trying to engage in rational discourse before ad hominems get thrown about.
Just because I see way more traffic accidents and drug ODs than patients who got shot admitted to the hospital doesn’t mean we should do nothing about gun control. Poor standards in some areas does not excuse a complete lack of standard in another. Also why we don’t ignore infectious disease and soley go after Mcdonalds and food/soda companies for all the mortality rate they’re directly/indirectly causing.
Other arguments for guns I’ve already read but don’t agree with, other posters already counter-argued and put in words better than I’ll ever have.
|
On November 17 2018 00:55 riotjune wrote:
Kinda ironic that one of his most continually used “arguments” is that since gun advocates get butthurt easily, if you offend them just one bit they have the right to ignore everything you say. Coming from a guy who repeatedly use harsh language to put down others when they’re just trying to make civil arguments makes him look like a hypocrite, maybe he should take his own advice and leave insults out of the mix.
I know we’re not convincing anybody here, but it’s good to see people with differing viewpoints offer their perspectives to avoid your so-called echo chamber. But when the endpoint arguments repeatedly consist of American exceptionalism and “other people are even bigger pieces of shit, that gives me an excuse to stay a medium piece of shit” aka keep status quo/do nothing (which says a lot about one’s character), I can see why some gave up trying to engage in rational discourse before ad hominems get thrown about.
Just because I see way more traffic accidents and drug ODs than patients who got shot admitted to the hospital doesn’t mean we should do nothing about gun control. Poor standards in some areas does not excuse a complete lack of standard in another. Also why we don’t ignore infectious disease and soley go after Mcdonalds and food/soda companies for all the mortality rate they’re directly/indirectly causing.
Other arguments for guns I’ve already read but don’t agree with, other posters already counter-argued and put in words better than I’ll ever have.
What's ironic is you include that third paragraph like it says something at all.
Oh look, another gun control proponent with a facile comparison, like somebody here thinks traffic accidents and drug overdoses prove we don't need gun control!
Who do you think you're arguing with? Seriously, I see posts like this all the time, and I can't fathom why you move from an observation on butthurt to an observation on bad arguments to ... a pointless and bad argument.
|
Irony is plentiful in this thread. It might be the number one export.
|
|
|
I thought the second paragraph was a good segue into the third. Maybe I should've combined the two? 
|
On November 17 2018 01:54 riotjune wrote:I thought the second paragraph was a good segue into the third. Maybe I should've combined the two?
If you meant by parody to criticize bad arguments and put forward bad ones on your side, then yes. Good performance too. I was entirely taken in.
|
On November 17 2018 01:33 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 01:06 Danglars wrote:On November 17 2018 00:55 riotjune wrote:
Kinda ironic that one of his most continually used “arguments” is that since gun advocates get butthurt easily, if you offend them just one bit they have the right to ignore everything you say. Coming from a guy who repeatedly use harsh language to put down others when they’re just trying to make civil arguments makes him look like a hypocrite, maybe he should take his own advice and leave insults out of the mix.
I know we’re not convincing anybody here, but it’s good to see people with differing viewpoints offer their perspectives to avoid your so-called echo chamber. But when the endpoint arguments repeatedly consist of American exceptionalism and “other people are even bigger pieces of shit, that gives me an excuse to stay a medium piece of shit” aka keep status quo/do nothing (which says a lot about one’s character), I can see why some gave up trying to engage in rational discourse before ad hominems get thrown about.
Just because I see way more traffic accidents and drug ODs than patients who got shot admitted to the hospital doesn’t mean we should do nothing about gun control. Poor standards in some areas does not excuse a complete lack of standard in another. Also why we don’t ignore infectious disease and soley go after Mcdonalds and food/soda companies for all the mortality rate they’re directly/indirectly causing.
Other arguments for guns I’ve already read but don’t agree with, other posters already counter-argued and put in words better than I’ll ever have. What's ironic is you include that third paragraph like it says something at all. Oh look, another gun control proponent with a facile comparison, like somebody here thinks traffic accidents and drug overdoses prove we don't need gun control! Who do you think you're arguing with? Seriously, I see posts like this all the time, and I can't fathom why you move from an observation on butthurt to an observation on bad arguments to ... a pointless and bad argument. Cherry picking, sniper Danglars swoops in after avoiding direct questions to attack one portion of someones post without taking into consideration of the post in its entirety. He mentioned that he agreed with the other points, that he just wanted to add on his own personal experiences. People use their own experiences in conversations all the time. What you bolded makes complete sense when you take it in the context of the entire post and don't just search for one thing you can fite against. Again you score no points here, people are trying to have conversations which include facts and logical arguments, as well as their life experiences and emotions which can add context to why they feel a certain way. This is especially important when their are stats on both sides. I don't know how many times you have argued about ones "personal safety" despite owning a gun being more dangerous than not. The gun makes you feel safe, it does to a lot of people. I'm also unsure if you understand the word ironic. He used it correctly and explained its use, you used it like alanis morissette.
You’ve learned much from Trump. “Cherry picking, sniping Danglars” is your “low energy Jeb” or “sloppy Steve.” It is very diverting to hear your frequent interjections, especially because i also received a response from the actual person I responded to. Keep them up or this thread will lack mirth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
