|
Any PUA discussion is banned from page 42 and onwards. |
On May 30 2014 06:53 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Not sure if it's already been posted here: http://markmanson.net/school-shootingsShow nested quote +This past weekend, a student named Elliot Rodger from Santa Barbara City College killed six and injured 13, the latest in a long series of school shootings that are all but becoming a normal part of American tradition. As usual, the killer left a cache of material behind to explain his intentions and milk as much publicity for his personal grievances as possible. This time, the focus was on women, and how they wouldn’t have sex with him.
Like they always do, the media have descended to explain away the madness. And like a Rorschach Test, each outlet had its own pet cause primed and ready to be read into the situation.
Gun control advocates used the event as an opportunity to campaign for stricter gun control, despite the fact that Rodger bought his guns legally and easily passed the background checks.
Mental health advocates used it as an opportunity to urge better mental health care, despite the fact that Rodger had had a small army of therapists and social workers working with him for practically his entire life.
Feminists used it as an opportunity to promote awareness for violence against women, despite the fact that Rodger killed indiscriminately and the majority of the victims turned out to be men.
Social justice advocates used it as an opportunity to rail against white male entitlement, despite the fact that Rodger was mixed race and a significant number of school shooters have also been minorities (Two examples: Seung-Hui Cho and Kimveer Gill).
All of these issues are legitimate and deserve conversation. But they are not the singular cause. They’re not the point.
Because of my book, I’m connected within the men’s dating advice industry. And many of them are scrambling right now. Elliot Rodger was a member of a number of sites, email lists and Facebook groups. And all of these authors and dating coaches — some of them legitimately decent men, others shady marketers — are all frantically trying to cover their tracks as best as possible.
But this “witch hunt” we go through every time a school shooting happens is a total ruse. Elliot Rodger didn’t become a killer because he was a misogynist; he became a misogynist because he was a killer. Just like Eric Harris didn’t become a killer because he loved violent video games; he loved violent video games because he was a killer. Just like Adam Lanza didn’t become a killer because he loved guns; he loved guns because he was a killer.
Every school shooting incident comes in the same dreary package: an angry, politically-charged rant, shrink-wrapped around a core of mental illness and neglect. These shooters leave behind journals, videos, diagrams, manifestos and treatises. They broadcast their plans and intentions to their friends and family. They email news outlets minutes before they start firing. They write down their plans and make checklists so that others may follow in their footsteps. They go on angry rants against materialism, hedonism, the government, mass media, women, and sometimes even the people close to them.
And each time, as a culture, we work ourselves into a frenzy debating the angry exterior message, while ignoring the interior life and context of each killer. We miss the point entirely.
Mass Shootings as Non-Political Terrorism
For a country that is so single-mindedly obsessed with terrorism, it’s jaw-dropping that almost nobody recognizes that school shooters use the exact same strategies to disseminate fear and their twisted agendas throughout society. Terrorists use violence and mass media coverage to promote political or religious beliefs; school shooters use violence and mass media coverage to promote their personal grievances and glorification.
When viewed in this way, our responses to the school shooters looks juvenile in comparison. Can you imagine arguing over whether misogyny made Osama Bin Laden plan September 11th? Or whether video games caused Dhokhar Tsarnaev to plant bombs at the Boston Marathon? Or whether heavy music inspired Timothy McVeigh to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City?
You would be laughed at.
And in fact, when anyone goes as far as to suggest that Islam causes terrorism, they are immediately and rightfully scolded for it. Yet when it comes to school shootings, these types of discussions are not only tolerated, but engaged in willfully.
It’s not that we should respond to school shootings the same way we respond to terrorist attacks. It’s that we already do. We just don’t realize it.
When Elliot’s creepy YouTube videos went public, declaring vengeance upon every college girl that wouldn’t sleep with him, every woman who had ever heard a guy mutter something similar suddenly felt a chill run up her spine. And that chill caused the video to be posted and reposted, sending more chills up more women’s spines until it had spread across the country. My guess is that’s exactly what Elliot would have wanted.
And we’ve seen this viral dissemination over and over again. After every school shooting episode, writings and videos of the killers get passed around on the internet. Television specials show and reshow the footage. Books are written. Experts are hired. Rinse and repeat.
Last year, I wrote that terrorism works because it takes advantages of psychological inefficiencies in our brains: we pay a disproportionate amount of attention to threatening events and we always overestimate how likely it is for a random event to happen to us. School shootings transfix us by leveraging the exact same inefficiencies in our minds. And once they’ve dominated this mindspace, we can’t seem to shake them out of it.
Yet, for some reason, while we seem to imagine potential terrorists everywhere — in airport lines, at stadium gates, in subway cars — we never see the school shooters coming. We’re always caught by surprise. A very interesting philosophy.
That's the best article I've seen on Elliot Rodgers mass killing. It looks at the problem internally instead of the end result.
|
On May 30 2014 09:42 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 09:32 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 09:14 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 09:09 Millitron wrote:
He saw numerous psychologists, none of whom thought he was a danger to anyone. Yeah , apparently they were wrong. That's why I'm saying mentally ill people shouldn't be handling guns. And if they were wrong this time, how is making it illegal for the mentally ill to own guns going to stop any more events like this? You just admitted they missed him, they could easily miss again. I think the whole call for gun control every time there's a shooting is kinda shortsighted. You don't hear any outcries for banning knives or cars, even though he used both in his murders. In fact, he stabbed just as many people as he shot! Comparing guns to everyday items like knifes or cars is flawed. Guns have only one purpose, shoot stuff. Statistically speaking 90 out of 100 Americans own a gun (although practically many own multiple guns, so the real number is obviously lower) but how many of these people really need guns? And sure people fall through the net, or club someone to death with a baseball bat or whatever, but just because you can't fix the whole problem doesn't mean fixing a part of it would be wrong.
Knives only have one purpose. To cut stuff. Be it human flesh or food.
Same with guns. They can shoot empty soda cans and cardboard boxes, or they can shoot people.
But neither knives or guns do anything by themselves. Knives don't stab people, people do. Likewise, guns dont shoot people, people do.
Its not the Bill of Needs, its the Bill of Rights. Need has nothing to do with it.
How many people really NEED free speech? None, look at North Korea, they aren't all dropping dead without it. How many people NEED an attorney or a trial? None, imagine how much quicker we could deal with criminals without all these slow trials.
How many people need alcohol? That kills way more people than guns. Yet you don't hear cries for trying prohibition again every time a drunk driver kills someone.
|
On May 30 2014 09:48 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 09:42 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 09:32 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 09:14 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 09:09 Millitron wrote:
He saw numerous psychologists, none of whom thought he was a danger to anyone. Yeah , apparently they were wrong. That's why I'm saying mentally ill people shouldn't be handling guns. And if they were wrong this time, how is making it illegal for the mentally ill to own guns going to stop any more events like this? You just admitted they missed him, they could easily miss again. I think the whole call for gun control every time there's a shooting is kinda shortsighted. You don't hear any outcries for banning knives or cars, even though he used both in his murders. In fact, he stabbed just as many people as he shot! Comparing guns to everyday items like knifes or cars is flawed. Guns have only one purpose, shoot stuff. Statistically speaking 90 out of 100 Americans own a gun (although practically many own multiple guns, so the real number is obviously lower) but how many of these people really need guns? And sure people fall through the net, or club someone to death with a baseball bat or whatever, but just because you can't fix the whole problem doesn't mean fixing a part of it would be wrong. Knives only have one purpose. To cut stuff. Be it human flesh or food. guns dont shoot people, people do. .
I'm not a gun-control advocate but I find this argument to be one of, if not the worst argument pro-gun activists could possibly make.
After all, nuclear weapons don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people. Bombs don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people.
I mean if you went downright philosophical on this, you would eventually come to the conclusion that NOTHING actually kills people, because a hand can't kill people on it's own, a brain can't kill people on it's own, almost always it's a combination of different things working together that results in people getting killed.
But what is absolutely the case is that guns are more effective at killing people than knives, baseballs bats, etc...
In the same sense that nuclear weapons are more effective at killing people than guns and I hope we can all accept that it is exactly for that reason why they should be illegal.
So the question really is how effective can a tool be at killing people before we say "that's too effective, we shouldn't allow people to use such a device."
|
On May 30 2014 09:59 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 09:48 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 09:42 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 09:32 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 09:14 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 09:09 Millitron wrote:
He saw numerous psychologists, none of whom thought he was a danger to anyone. Yeah , apparently they were wrong. That's why I'm saying mentally ill people shouldn't be handling guns. And if they were wrong this time, how is making it illegal for the mentally ill to own guns going to stop any more events like this? You just admitted they missed him, they could easily miss again. I think the whole call for gun control every time there's a shooting is kinda shortsighted. You don't hear any outcries for banning knives or cars, even though he used both in his murders. In fact, he stabbed just as many people as he shot! Comparing guns to everyday items like knifes or cars is flawed. Guns have only one purpose, shoot stuff. Statistically speaking 90 out of 100 Americans own a gun (although practically many own multiple guns, so the real number is obviously lower) but how many of these people really need guns? And sure people fall through the net, or club someone to death with a baseball bat or whatever, but just because you can't fix the whole problem doesn't mean fixing a part of it would be wrong. Knives only have one purpose. To cut stuff. Be it human flesh or food. guns dont shoot people, people do. . I'm not a gun-control advocate but I find this argument to be one of, if not the worst argument pro-gun activists could possibly make. After all, nuclear weapons don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people. Bombs don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people. I mean if you went downright philosophical on this, you would eventually come to the conclusion that NOTHING actually kills people, because a hand can't kill people on it's own, a brain can't kill people on it's own, almost always it's a combination of different things working together that results in people getting killed. But what is absolutely the case is that guns are more effective at killing people than knives, baseballs bats, etc... In the same sense that nuclear weapons are more effective at killing people than guns and I hope we can all accept that it is exactly for that reason why they should be illegal. So the question really is how effective can a tool be at killing people before we say "that's too effective, we shouldn't allow people to use such a device."
If its sheer number of deaths you're worried about, alcohol is over twice as bad as guns.
Alcohol is involved in 75,000 deaths per year.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/
Guns are involved in about 30,000 deaths per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
|
On May 30 2014 10:08 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 09:59 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 09:48 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 09:42 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 09:32 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 09:14 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 09:09 Millitron wrote:
He saw numerous psychologists, none of whom thought he was a danger to anyone. Yeah , apparently they were wrong. That's why I'm saying mentally ill people shouldn't be handling guns. And if they were wrong this time, how is making it illegal for the mentally ill to own guns going to stop any more events like this? You just admitted they missed him, they could easily miss again. I think the whole call for gun control every time there's a shooting is kinda shortsighted. You don't hear any outcries for banning knives or cars, even though he used both in his murders. In fact, he stabbed just as many people as he shot! Comparing guns to everyday items like knifes or cars is flawed. Guns have only one purpose, shoot stuff. Statistically speaking 90 out of 100 Americans own a gun (although practically many own multiple guns, so the real number is obviously lower) but how many of these people really need guns? And sure people fall through the net, or club someone to death with a baseball bat or whatever, but just because you can't fix the whole problem doesn't mean fixing a part of it would be wrong. Knives only have one purpose. To cut stuff. Be it human flesh or food. guns dont shoot people, people do. . I'm not a gun-control advocate but I find this argument to be one of, if not the worst argument pro-gun activists could possibly make. After all, nuclear weapons don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people. Bombs don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people. I mean if you went downright philosophical on this, you would eventually come to the conclusion that NOTHING actually kills people, because a hand can't kill people on it's own, a brain can't kill people on it's own, almost always it's a combination of different things working together that results in people getting killed. But what is absolutely the case is that guns are more effective at killing people than knives, baseballs bats, etc... In the same sense that nuclear weapons are more effective at killing people than guns and I hope we can all accept that it is exactly for that reason why they should be illegal. So the question really is how effective can a tool be at killing people before we say "that's too effective, we shouldn't allow people to use such a device." If its sheer number of deaths you're worried about, alcohol is over twice as bad as guns. Alcohol is involved in 75,000 deaths per year. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/Guns are involved in about 30,000 deaths per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
No that has nothing to do with what I said. I mean given your own logic here you would have to conclude that nuclear weapons should be legal, given that there are 0 deaths per year in the US that are attributable to a nuclear weapon being used.
|
The difference is that guns serve absolutely no purpose for the majority of people owning them. You cut your food with knives, which is pretty important, you go on a drink with your friends which is a very pleasurable experience, but what do 90 out of 100 Americans do with their guns? Nothing except exercising the right of owning them.
edit: every law that prohibits something is a pragmatic weighting between the interests of the public and the individual. Banning alcohol or other drugs significantly impairs the individual freedom, making guns way more restrictive does what? Stopping you from shooting empty soda cans? The self defense argument is a really bad one because firstly you have a police for that and secondly, many studies have shown that guns in self-defense are often used illegally and escalate the situation (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/)
|
On May 30 2014 10:12 Nyxisto wrote:
The difference is that guns serve absolutely no purpose for the majority of people owning them. You cut your food with knives, which is pretty important, you go on a drink with your friends which is a very pleasurable experience, but what do 90 out of 100 Americans do with their guns? Nothing except exercising the right of owning them.
We shoot them at cardboard, paper, tin cans, and we hunt. Those are all very pleasurable experiences.
I think its funny that you're implying those 75,000 deaths due to alcohol are acceptable losses as long as you can keep your booze, but 30,000 deaths is way too many to allow guns.
I didn't bring up self-defense, but since you went there.
The police are minutes away, assuming you can even get to a phone. Further, they have no actual responsibility to protect you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
In case you don't want to read it, I'll sum it up. In an apartment building, a woman was being beaten and raped on the second floor. Two women on the third floor called 911, and the responding officer just looked around outside and left. The assailants then went upstairs and proceeded to rape the women who had called 911. The Supreme Court found that the police had no responsibility to help any individual, therefore their failure to act was acceptable.
Where is alcohol mentioned in the Bill of Rights?
On May 30 2014 10:12 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 10:08 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 09:59 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 09:48 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 09:42 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 09:32 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 09:14 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 09:09 Millitron wrote:
He saw numerous psychologists, none of whom thought he was a danger to anyone. Yeah , apparently they were wrong. That's why I'm saying mentally ill people shouldn't be handling guns. And if they were wrong this time, how is making it illegal for the mentally ill to own guns going to stop any more events like this? You just admitted they missed him, they could easily miss again. I think the whole call for gun control every time there's a shooting is kinda shortsighted. You don't hear any outcries for banning knives or cars, even though he used both in his murders. In fact, he stabbed just as many people as he shot! Comparing guns to everyday items like knifes or cars is flawed. Guns have only one purpose, shoot stuff. Statistically speaking 90 out of 100 Americans own a gun (although practically many own multiple guns, so the real number is obviously lower) but how many of these people really need guns? And sure people fall through the net, or club someone to death with a baseball bat or whatever, but just because you can't fix the whole problem doesn't mean fixing a part of it would be wrong. Knives only have one purpose. To cut stuff. Be it human flesh or food. guns dont shoot people, people do. . I'm not a gun-control advocate but I find this argument to be one of, if not the worst argument pro-gun activists could possibly make. After all, nuclear weapons don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people. Bombs don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people. I mean if you went downright philosophical on this, you would eventually come to the conclusion that NOTHING actually kills people, because a hand can't kill people on it's own, a brain can't kill people on it's own, almost always it's a combination of different things working together that results in people getting killed. But what is absolutely the case is that guns are more effective at killing people than knives, baseballs bats, etc... In the same sense that nuclear weapons are more effective at killing people than guns and I hope we can all accept that it is exactly for that reason why they should be illegal. So the question really is how effective can a tool be at killing people before we say "that's too effective, we shouldn't allow people to use such a device." If its sheer number of deaths you're worried about, alcohol is over twice as bad as guns. Alcohol is involved in 75,000 deaths per year. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/Guns are involved in about 30,000 deaths per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States No that has nothing to do with what I said. I mean given your own logic here you would have to conclude that nuclear weapons should be legal, given that there are 0 deaths per year in the US that are attributable to a nuclear weapon being used.
Really, nukes are way too expensive for anyone to even get one. Look how much trouble whole countries have getting them. Even if they were legal, no one would have them. The whole "Do you want to legalize nukes?" thing is a pretty terrible strawman.
|
On May 30 2014 10:22 Millitron wrote:
Really, nukes are way too expensive for anyone to even get one. Look how much trouble whole countries have getting them. Even if they were legal, no one would have them. The whole "Do you want to legalize nukes?" thing is a pretty terrible strawman.
First of all it was a hypothetical example, it doesn't depend on how expensive the weapon is.
But alright, then just replace "nuclear weapon" with "sarin" and you still have the exact same problem in your argument.
|
On May 30 2014 10:34 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 10:22 Millitron wrote:
Really, nukes are way too expensive for anyone to even get one. Look how much trouble whole countries have getting them. Even if they were legal, no one would have them. The whole "Do you want to legalize nukes?" thing is a pretty terrible strawman. First of all it was a hypothetical example, it doesn't depend on how expensive the weapon is. But alright, then just replace "nuclear weapon" with "sarin" and you still have the exact same problem in your argument.
Not really. Governments are banned from chemical and biological weapons. People should be allowed to use the same weapons the Government is.
If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government?
|
On May 30 2014 10:42 Millitron wrote:
If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government?
It seems like your whole argumentation boils down to a mix of "Murica, fuck yeah!" and "how am I going to defend myself against the Redcoats?!"
|
On May 30 2014 10:42 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 10:34 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 10:22 Millitron wrote:
Really, nukes are way too expensive for anyone to even get one. Look how much trouble whole countries have getting them. Even if they were legal, no one would have them. The whole "Do you want to legalize nukes?" thing is a pretty terrible strawman. First of all it was a hypothetical example, it doesn't depend on how expensive the weapon is. But alright, then just replace "nuclear weapon" with "sarin" and you still have the exact same problem in your argument. Not really. Governments are banned from chemical and biological weapons. People should be allowed to use the same weapons the Government is. If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government?
See you are still missing the point.
I'm asking why should any weapon be illegal, what in your mind is a sufficient enough reason to ban a weapon (where do you draw the line), not even just relating to the government or people but in general?
|
On May 30 2014 10:48 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 10:42 Millitron wrote:
If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government? It seems like your whole argumentation boils down to a mix of "Murica, fuck yeah!" and "how am I going to defend myself against the Redcoats?!"
Again, I haven't said anything about defense without being prompted.
But your whole argument seems to boil down to trying to save lives. If saving lives is what you want why not restrict the things that actually kill the most people? i.e. alcohol, cigarettes, and Mcdonalds? None of those things are rights.
|
On May 30 2014 10:50 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 10:42 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 10:34 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 10:22 Millitron wrote:
Really, nukes are way too expensive for anyone to even get one. Look how much trouble whole countries have getting them. Even if they were legal, no one would have them. The whole "Do you want to legalize nukes?" thing is a pretty terrible strawman. First of all it was a hypothetical example, it doesn't depend on how expensive the weapon is. But alright, then just replace "nuclear weapon" with "sarin" and you still have the exact same problem in your argument. Not really. Governments are banned from chemical and biological weapons. People should be allowed to use the same weapons the Government is. If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government? See you are still missing the point. I'm asking why should any weapon be illegal, what in your mind is a sufficient enough reason to ban a weapon (where do you draw the line), not even just relating to the government or people but in general?
In general, if I was king of the UN or whatever and had the final say, I'd allow any weapon to any government or person. What I really care about is not having a double-standard. I don't care so much about where you draw the line, so long as you use the same line for everyone. Governments are no more responsible than individuals. They may even be less responsible, as the consequences of the use of these weapons rarely affect the people issuing the orders. How many generals in WW1 felt bad about using chemical weapons?
|
On May 30 2014 10:51 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 10:48 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 10:42 Millitron wrote:
If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government? It seems like your whole argumentation boils down to a mix of "Murica, fuck yeah!" and "how am I going to defend myself against the Redcoats?!" Again, I haven't said anything about defense without being prompted. But your whole argument seems to boil down to trying to save lives. If saving lives is what you want why not restrict the things that actually kill the most people? i.e. alcohol, cigarettes, and Mcdonalds? None of those things are rights.
Have you ever killed another person with a chicken McNugget?
|
On May 30 2014 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 10:51 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 10:48 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 10:42 Millitron wrote:
If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government? It seems like your whole argumentation boils down to a mix of "Murica, fuck yeah!" and "how am I going to defend myself against the Redcoats?!" Again, I haven't said anything about defense without being prompted. But your whole argument seems to boil down to trying to save lives. If saving lives is what you want why not restrict the things that actually kill the most people? i.e. alcohol, cigarettes, and Mcdonalds? None of those things are rights. Have you ever killed another person with a chicken McNugget?
No. And I've never killed anyone with a gun either.
|
On May 30 2014 10:51 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 10:48 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 10:42 Millitron wrote:
If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government? It seems like your whole argumentation boils down to a mix of "Murica, fuck yeah!" and "how am I going to defend myself against the Redcoats?!" Again, I haven't said anything about defense without being prompted. But your whole argument seems to boil down to trying to save lives. If saving lives is what you want why not restrict the things that actually kill the most people? i.e. alcohol, cigarettes, and Mcdonalds? None of those things are rights.
Nobody goes out into the street with 3 Big Macs and a 20 pack of Camel and murders a bunch of unsuspecting innocent people with them. If you kill yourself with Big Macs or cigs that's your own fucking choice. That's why.
|
On May 30 2014 10:55 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 10:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 10:42 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 10:34 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 10:22 Millitron wrote:
Really, nukes are way too expensive for anyone to even get one. Look how much trouble whole countries have getting them. Even if they were legal, no one would have them. The whole "Do you want to legalize nukes?" thing is a pretty terrible strawman. First of all it was a hypothetical example, it doesn't depend on how expensive the weapon is. But alright, then just replace "nuclear weapon" with "sarin" and you still have the exact same problem in your argument. Not really. Governments are banned from chemical and biological weapons. People should be allowed to use the same weapons the Government is. If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government? See you are still missing the point. I'm asking why should any weapon be illegal, what in your mind is a sufficient enough reason to ban a weapon (where do you draw the line), not even just relating to the government or people but in general? In general, if I was king of the UN or whatever and had the final say, I'd allow any weapon to any government or person. What I really care about is not having a double-standard. I don't care so much about where you draw the line, so long as you use the same line for everyone. Governments are no more responsible than individuals. They may even be less responsible, as the consequences of the use of these weapons rarely affect the people issuing the orders. How many generals in WW1 felt bad about using chemical weapons?
So if then everyone had a large stockpile of sarin in their basement you would be totally ok with that?
Well, alright then, I think I'm done here. Not gonna waste any more breath on this.
|
On May 30 2014 10:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 10:51 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 10:48 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 10:42 Millitron wrote:
If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government? It seems like your whole argumentation boils down to a mix of "Murica, fuck yeah!" and "how am I going to defend myself against the Redcoats?!" Again, I haven't said anything about defense without being prompted. But your whole argument seems to boil down to trying to save lives. If saving lives is what you want why not restrict the things that actually kill the most people? i.e. alcohol, cigarettes, and Mcdonalds? None of those things are rights. Have you ever killed another person with a chicken McNugget? No. And I've never killed anyone with a gun either.
I think you could have guessed I wasn't literally talking only to you. But the important distinction is fast food is only dangerous to the person eating it. Alcohol is also banned in places where its use endangers other people.(like driving).
|
On May 30 2014 10:57 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 10:51 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 10:48 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 10:42 Millitron wrote:
If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government? It seems like your whole argumentation boils down to a mix of "Murica, fuck yeah!" and "how am I going to defend myself against the Redcoats?!" Again, I haven't said anything about defense without being prompted. But your whole argument seems to boil down to trying to save lives. If saving lives is what you want why not restrict the things that actually kill the most people? i.e. alcohol, cigarettes, and Mcdonalds? None of those things are rights. Nobody goes out into the street with 3 Big Macs and a 20 pack of Camel and murders a bunch of unsuspecting innocent people with them. If you kill yourself with Big Macs or cigs that's your own fucking choice. That's why.
If we're banning things that kill a bunch of innocent people, we need to ban fertilizer too. Timothy McVeigh killed 82 using it.
Cigarettes do also kill innocent people; second hand smoke.
If we're not counting self-inflicted deaths, those gun death numbers I posted earlier go down to 11,000.
On May 30 2014 10:58 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 10:55 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 10:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 10:42 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 10:34 SlixSC wrote:On May 30 2014 10:22 Millitron wrote:
Really, nukes are way too expensive for anyone to even get one. Look how much trouble whole countries have getting them. Even if they were legal, no one would have them. The whole "Do you want to legalize nukes?" thing is a pretty terrible strawman. First of all it was a hypothetical example, it doesn't depend on how expensive the weapon is. But alright, then just replace "nuclear weapon" with "sarin" and you still have the exact same problem in your argument. Not really. Governments are banned from chemical and biological weapons. People should be allowed to use the same weapons the Government is. If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government? See you are still missing the point. I'm asking why should any weapon be illegal, what in your mind is a sufficient enough reason to ban a weapon (where do you draw the line), not even just relating to the government or people but in general? In general, if I was king of the UN or whatever and had the final say, I'd allow any weapon to any government or person. What I really care about is not having a double-standard. I don't care so much about where you draw the line, so long as you use the same line for everyone. Governments are no more responsible than individuals. They may even be less responsible, as the consequences of the use of these weapons rarely affect the people issuing the orders. How many generals in WW1 felt bad about using chemical weapons? So if then everyone had a large stockpile of sarin in their basement you would be totally ok with that? Well, alright then, I think I'm done here. Not gonna waste any more breath on this.
I'd prefer if they didn't. But I'd also prefer if the government didn't have it either. I cannot see any reason why the government should not have the right to it though. So while I'd prefer if they didn't have it, that in and of itself is not reason to ban it.
On May 30 2014 11:00 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2014 10:56 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 10:55 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 10:51 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2014 10:48 Nyxisto wrote:On May 30 2014 10:42 Millitron wrote:
If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government? It seems like your whole argumentation boils down to a mix of "Murica, fuck yeah!" and "how am I going to defend myself against the Redcoats?!" Again, I haven't said anything about defense without being prompted. But your whole argument seems to boil down to trying to save lives. If saving lives is what you want why not restrict the things that actually kill the most people? i.e. alcohol, cigarettes, and Mcdonalds? None of those things are rights. Have you ever killed another person with a chicken McNugget? No. And I've never killed anyone with a gun either. I think you could have guessed I wasn't literally talking only to you. But the important distinction is fast food is only dangerous to the person eating it. Alcohol is also banned in places where its use endangers other people.(like driving).
And yet drunk driving still kills people.
|
On May 30 2014 10:55 Millitron wrote:
In general, if I was king of the UN or whatever and had the final say, I'd allow any weapon to any government or person.
On May 30 2014 11:02 Millitron wrote:
I'd prefer if they didn't. But I'd also prefer if the government didn't have it either.
You know it's time to stop when you are actively contradicting yourself without even realizing it. Just stop dude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
