Notices
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 266 of 266
Like Tree103Likes

Thread: Why are Canadians (and Brits) so worried about guns?

  1. #201  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I was asking for you to clarify the question first. Why did you not clarify it?
    Because it was a question easy enough for a child to answer.
    If it's beyond you, then I'll try to make things even simpler.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    At the Federal level?
    Would you like to move the goal posts any further before I bother replying?

    I don't know why I replied to you.
    You are as bad as Harold.

    I think I'll just stick to pointing out your lies mistakes.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I was asking for you to clarify the question first. Why did you not clarify it?
    Because it was a question easy enough for a child to answer.
    If it's beyond you, then I'll try to make things even simpler.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    At the Federal level?
    Would you like to move the goal posts any further before I bother replying?

    I don't know why I replied to you.
    You are as bad as Harold.

    I think I'll just stick to pointing out your lies mistakes.
    Why don't you tell me where *you* think the goal posts are?

    I try asking you where they are, and you get all mad about it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    ...
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    For some of my fellow soldiers, if the orders were to kill you, they wouldn't even hesitate.
    And an automatic following of that order could land a Soldier in a lot of trouble. ....
    Remember My Lai?
    2nd lieutenant william calley ordered the shootings at my lai
    and only poor william was convicted
    though I think captain ernest medina shoulda also got a free trip to kansas.

    None of the enlisted men were treated to a courts martial!

    "Could land a soldier in a lot of trouble"?
    example wherein following orders has done this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    SGT Gary Pittman
    SGT David Passaro
    Private First Class Corey R. Clagett
    Specialist William B. Hunsaker

    There's at least a dozen more in the past dozen years.
    Yes, enlisted soldiers are more often offered mitigation and plea bargins because they are following orders--but it appears the military takes a stronger stance and expects more judgement from enlisted than 50 years ago.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Hey
    I ain't that old
    It's only been a tad over 45 years
    ..................
    of those you listed, the following orders part seems a bit iffy
    Last edited by sculptor; December 3rd, 2013 at 07:57 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I try asking you where they are, and you get all mad about it.
    LIE!!
    That is incorrect.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I try asking you where they are, and you get all mad about it.
    LIE!!
    That is incorrect.

    Was there not a question mark at the end of my statement "at the federal level?"


    I don't know what level people think this high priced gun lobbying is happening. If I'm right and the whole industry is only pulling in 1 or 2 billion in net profits, then these would need to be some very frugal lobbyists to be getting so much pull in Washington. I mean, in a country with a total GDP of 15 trillion, it's easy to get lost in the crowd.


    This strip should really help. It's actually anti-gun lobby, but if I line by line and put it in perspective, you'll begin to see how silly this is. It's called "15 things the gun industry doesn't want you to know". I'll highlight a few of its points.


    15 Things The Gun Industry Doesn't Want You To Know


    ...






    1) - Points out the NRA spent between 1.5 million and 2.7 million on lobbying efforts in 2010.


    According to this site, the total campaign budgets nationwide will reach 6 billion in 2012.


    2012 Election Spending Will Reach $6 Billion, Center for Responsive Politics Predicts - OpenSecrets Blog


    So.... the NRA is somewhere in the vicinity of one half of a tenth of a percent of that.




    5) - Majority of Americans support stricter gun control.


    Now if you click on the link to that study, you find that that majority was a 58% majority, and it was conducted in the context of the December 14th Connecticut massacre (their reaction to which was one of the questions on the poll --- which may have colored their responses to other questions...) . When they were asked more specific questions, some of the things that were found were that that: 55% favored laws against assault rifles, 84% favored a federal standard for background checks, 80% favored background checks at gun shows, and 54% wanted rules about violence in video games.

    But the 58% were those who responded "yes" when simply asked the general question of whether they "favored strengthening gun laws in the USA."


    Here's the link to the article about the poll. Gun Control Poll: 6 in 10 Favor Stricter Gun Laws


    #6) - They make a lot of guns.


    By "a lot", they mean 8 million in 2011. It doesn't say how many of those were sold to civilians, police, or military.

    If each gun had gone to a separate owner, then less than 3% of the US population would have bought a gun that year.


    #10) - 74% of NRA members favor background checks.


    It seems just about everyone agrees about that.


    #14) - NRA donated 1 million to Mitt Romney.


    Mitt Romney raised nearly a billion dollars. So I guess they funded 0.1% of his campaign.


    The 2012 Money Race: Compare the Candidates - NYTimes.com








    So.... my point is..... I don't find the gun control side of the political debate in the USA to be overwhelmingly honest. It throws out big, impressive sounding numbers, and then grossly misrepresents their meaning. It is hard to imagine that they don't do so knowingly, but it's also possible that maybe they're just so bad at math that they don't even realize their mistake. People who think emotionally sometimes have a hard time using logic very well.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679° S, 153.0278° E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    So.... my point is..... I don't find the gun control side of the political debate in the USA to be overwhelmingly honest. It throws out big, impressive sounding numbers, and then grossly misrepresents their meaning. It is hard to imagine that they don't do so knowingly, but it's also possible that maybe they're just so bad at math that they don't even realize their mistake. People who think emotionally sometimes have a hard time using logic very well.
    I tend to try to simplfy things in my mind due to the confusion that arises in any debate such as this. The same could be said for example of the 'anthropogenic global warming' debate. Cherry picking statements just cause confusion from both sides.

    The questions I would ask myself when such confusion arises is this.

    Consider an experiment with a defined sample population base. If I simply made guns more available to that population base in a democratic society, what are the likely impacts associated with that single act? Is there a greater of less likelihood that serious harm or death could arise to the members of that population base with that decision?

    If you decide a greater likelihood, then you can then go to the next step of enquiry relating to what possible benefit is there to any democratic society in justifying this. If the result confirmed a lower likelihood then such an action would support basic democratic principles of human rights.

    When I consider it this way, any justification for making guns more available to the population in a democracy does not make sense to me. Note in this context I assume that the basic 'right to life' exceeds the value of 'the right to bear arms' in a democratic society. The 'State' in this context of a Democracy would need to ensure that 'the right to life' has a higher priority. :-))
    RedPanda likes this.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Implicate Order View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    So.... my point is..... I don't find the gun control side of the political debate in the USA to be overwhelmingly honest. It throws out big, impressive sounding numbers, and then grossly misrepresents their meaning. It is hard to imagine that they don't do so knowingly, but it's also possible that maybe they're just so bad at math that they don't even realize their mistake. People who think emotionally sometimes have a hard time using logic very well.
    I tend to try to simplfy things in my mind due to the confusion that arises in any debate such as this. The same could be said for example of the 'anthropogenic global warming' debate. Cherry picking statements just cause confusion from both sides.

    The questions I would ask myself when such confusion arises is this.

    Consider an experiment with a defined sample population base. If I simply made guns more available to that population base in a democratic society, what are the likely impacts associated with that single act? Is there a greater of less likelihood that serious harm or death could arise to the members of that population base with that decision?

    If you decide a greater likelihood, then you can then go to the next step of enquiry relating to what possible benefit is there to any democratic society in justifying this. If the result confirmed a lower likelihood then such an action would support basic democratic principles of human rights.

    When I consider it this way, any justification for making guns more available to the population in a democracy does not make sense to me. :-))
    I wonder:
    Where is this idyllic democratic society of which you speak(so to speak)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679° S, 153.0278° E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    I wonder:
    Where is this idyllic democratic society of which you speak(so to speak)?
    A small community of zen organic farmers located in the land known as 'Reasonable World' :-))
    RedPanda likes this.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Implicate Order View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    So.... my point is..... I don't find the gun control side of the political debate in the USA to be overwhelmingly honest. It throws out big, impressive sounding numbers, and then grossly misrepresents their meaning. It is hard to imagine that they don't do so knowingly, but it's also possible that maybe they're just so bad at math that they don't even realize their mistake. People who think emotionally sometimes have a hard time using logic very well.
    I tend to try to simplfy things in my mind due to the confusion that arises in any debate such as this. The same could be said for example of the 'anthropogenic global warming' debate. Cherry picking statements just cause confusion from both sides.

    The questions I would ask myself when such confusion arises is this.

    Consider an experiment with a defined sample population base. If I simply made guns more available to that population base in a democratic society, what are the likely impacts associated with that single act? Is there a greater of less likelihood that serious harm or death could arise to the members of that population base with that decision?

    If you decide a greater likelihood, then you can then go to the next step of enquiry relating to what possible benefit is there to any democratic society in justifying this. If the result confirmed a lower likelihood then such an action would support basic democratic principles of human rights.

    When I consider it this way, any justification for making guns more available to the population in a democracy does not make sense to me. Note in this context I assume that the basic 'right to life' exceeds the value of 'the right to bear arms' in a democratic society. The 'State' in this context of a Democracy would need to ensure that 'the right to life' has a higher priority. :-))
    Are you not here essentially butting your head against your own head? jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    ok
    another harvest of a large deer--------may be more'n 100 lbs when done for our future meals.
    without the weapon, I'd have to use snares and a club--------the weapon is a lot more humane-----if humane = one shot one kill, and they drop where they were shot--------------
    I'm good with a weapon because I've used them often(when younger) and the skills remain decades after acquired.

    .................
    I want no further infringement.
    none
    zip
    nada
    for myself or the generations to come.
    ...............
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679° S, 153.0278° E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    ok
    another harvest of a large deer--------may be more'n 100 lbs when done for our future meals.
    without the weapon, I'd have to use snares and a club--------the weapon is a lot more humane-----if humane = one shot one kill, and they drop where they were shot--------------
    I'm good with a weapon because I've used them often(when younger) and the skills remain decades after acquired.
    Point taken....... My response however was meant to be referring to an experiment regarding a population with some form of gun control applied, versus a population where that form of control was relaxed. In my Zen community I did have room for a few marksmen from the military to provide meat for the carnivores in that community and also defend my community from property developers and mormons /tic

    PS You should try some Dandelion tea. It sounds like you may just have too much meat in you. :-))
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    5 months or more before I see dandelions again
    but i did dry some lemon mint, and peppermint for tea.

    tonight it was spinach cheese crepes for supper
    with some venison on the side
    everyone here loves my crepes
    babe and Implicate Order like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    without the weapon, I'd have to use snares and a club--------the weapon is a lot more humane-----if humane = one shot one kill, and they drop where they were shot--------------
    Without a weapon you would raise cattle/poultry and kill them instead.

    The world's supply of meet is not provided by hunting.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    RP:
    there is the rub for the paleo diet people
    we have grown in numbers far in excess of the "natural" carrying capacity of the earth

    In point of fact, most of my meat comes from hunting and fishing. I do raise chickens for the eggs. But then, again, I have a small acreage bordered by thousands of acres of dnr/army corps of engeneers land surrounding the river. So I am blessed with a proximity to the bounty of nature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    So.... my point is..... I don't find the gun control side of the political debate in the USA to be overwhelmingly honest.
    Clearly, it isn't. Sometimes it gets downright shameful. One side claims we want to take away their guns and get them raped and killed even though statistics demonstrate that countries with stricter gun laws have lower gun-related crime rates (which seems to make sense). The other side tries to paint all gun owners as criminals who are directly responsible for some of the most horrific shootings in our country's history.

    The idea is to get past all that emotional crap and look at the statistics. Unfortunately, when the statistic don't match what we want, we twist them or deny them.
    babe likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    RP:
    there is the rub for the paleo diet people
    we have grown in numbers far in excess of the "natural" carrying capacity of the earth
    Which is why farming was invented.
    We can definitely meet the demand of the current population - using 'unnatural' methods like farming / raising livestock.
    My point was: we don't need guns to feed ourselves.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    RP:
    there is the rub for the paleo diet people
    we have grown in numbers far in excess of the "natural" carrying capacity of the earth
    Which is why farming was invented.
    We can definitely meet the demand of the current population - using 'unnatural' methods like farming / raising livestock.
    My point was: we don't need guns to feed ourselves.
    For what it's worth, I do support people who want to hunt for food. I would rather see massive natural preserves open to controlled hunting with bag limits than swathes of farm land ruining the ecology of our planet.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    For what it's worth, I do support people who want to hunt for food. I would rather see massive natural preserves open to controlled hunting with bag limits than swathes of farm land ruining the ecology of our planet.
    The problem lies in the size of the reserves needed.
    If we massively reduced the world's population, then self-sufficient hunting could be possible.
    But no-one ever wants to discuss reducing the world's population.

    For example, in the UK there is a housing shortage. We are (comparatively) a densely populated country.
    Politicians are always looking for ways to resolve the housing problem.
    But you will never see them suggest that people should have fewer children.
    People think that having as many children as they want is a right rather than a privilege and a responsibility.

    But this is way off-topic. Maybe it would make a interesting new thread?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Implicate Order View Post

    The questions I would ask myself when such confusion arises is this.

    Consider an experiment with a defined sample population base. If I simply made guns more available to that population base in a democratic society, what are the likely impacts associated with that single act? Is there a greater of less likelihood that serious harm or death could arise to the members of that population base with that decision?

    If you decide a greater likelihood, then you can then go to the next step of enquiry relating to what possible benefit is there to any democratic society in justifying this. If the result confirmed a lower likelihood then such an action would support basic democratic principles of human rights.

    When I consider it this way, any justification for making guns more available to the population in a democracy does not make sense to me. Note in this context I assume that the basic 'right to life' exceeds the value of 'the right to bear arms' in a democratic society. The 'State' in this context of a Democracy would need to ensure that 'the right to life' has a higher priority. :-))
    I just don't understand why you consider life to be the greatest right. You realize, don't you? That life and liberty have frequently found themselves to be mutually exclusive principles in the past? We may dream of having both together, but circumstances don't always bother to ask us what our dreams are before they happen.

    It only takes one person to put the two at odds. It takes unanimous agreement by a whole society to have both together completely. Near unanimous agreement, and you can get them nearly together, nearly completely.

    But, in a place where you've got lots of dissent, like the USA - where you've got all these angry people, either ethnic groups that feel mistreated, or religious nut jobs, or people who've lost their livelihood in economic downturns.... you've got a snowball's chance in hell of getting the kind of unanimous agreement you would need.

    Liberty is the one of those two that the USA has going for it the most. Life..... eh... not so much... Why don't we play to our strengths?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    RP:
    there is the rub for the paleo diet people
    we have grown in numbers far in excess of the "natural" carrying capacity of the earth
    Which is why farming was invented.
    We can definitely meet the demand of the current population - using 'unnatural' methods like farming / raising livestock.
    My point was: we don't need guns to feed ourselves.
    What do you mean "WE" white boy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    For what it's worth, I do support people who want to hunt for food. I would rather see massive natural preserves open to controlled hunting with bag limits than swathes of farm land ruining the ecology of our planet.
    The problem lies in the size of the reserves needed.
    If we massively reduced the world's population, then self-sufficient hunting could be possible.
    But no-one ever wants to discuss reducing the world's population.

    For example, in the UK there is a housing shortage. We are (comparatively) a densely populated country.
    Politicians are always looking for ways to resolve the housing problem.
    But you will never see them suggest that people should have fewer children.
    People think that having as many children as they want is a right rather than a privilege and a responsibility.

    But this is way off-topic. Maybe it would make a interesting new thread?
    I'm not suggesting it is practical. It's just something I would like to see. If you consider the population density of a forest in regards to game animals, it is nothing near a local hog farm. The profit from running such a place would be pennies compared to what farmers can earn from their sprawling (and often, packed) pastures. All I can think of is how much better for our ecological systems it would be to restore some of these places to their natural ecologies (praries with wild buffalo, forests with white-tailed deer and rabbits, wetlands with water fowl) and allowing monitored hunting than to continue our present methods of destructive agriculture. Perhaps if we cared more about protecting what is important than we do about money, things would change. As it is, I don't see this as a realistic possibility, which is a real shame.

    I guess the point related to guns is that there would be a reason to have them for hunting in a scenario like that, but you're right that it's not really on topic.
    RedPanda likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    [.
    But you will never see them suggest that people should have fewer children.

    More children produced eventually = more taxes paid to the bureaucracy. joc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    What do you mean "WE" white boy?
    I include you.
    You simply choose to use guns to feed yourself.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    In order to feed everyone, infrastructure would need to grow faster than population for at least a brief period of time. The ability to improve infrastructure is limited (don't know what that limit is, but there obviously must be one.) It can only grow so fast. Population, on the other hand, can grow very fast.

    There is also the second concern, that as natural resources are stretched further and further, it will require a greater and greater amount of infrastructure improvements to achieve the same increases as before.

    The result is that growth in food supply must happen at a slower and slower rate. If the population doesn't also grow at a slower and slower rate, then food production will continue to fall further and further behind. If the rates of growth do manage to match up, then at least there is hope. If population manages to slow down enough to let food production catch up, then it's a winnable venture.



    How does this affect gun control? ..... Maybe we could assign a slightly smaller value to life and death. Let angry and disgruntled people kill one another. The sooner we're rid of them, the more time and energy we'll have to devote to improving conditions. Honestly. If some guy wants to kill some other guy, then he's not deserving of the "right" to live. He isn't granting that right to the other guy. How do we argue, then, that he deserves to have a right which he, in turn, will not grant to someone else?
    jocular likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If some guy wants to kill some other guy, then he's not deserving of the "right" to live. He isn't granting that right to the other guy. How do we argue, then, that he deserves to have a right which he, in turn, will not grant to someone else?
    Are you suggesting that he should be killed?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    How does this affect gun control? ..... Maybe we could assign a slightly smaller value to life and death. Let angry and disgruntled people kill one another. The sooner we're rid of them, the more time and energy we'll have to devote to improving conditions. Honestly. If some guy wants to kill some other guy, then he's not deserving of the "right" to live. He isn't granting that right to the other guy. How do we argue, then, that he deserves to have a right which he, in turn, will not grant to someone else?
    A few guys killing a few others here and there is not adequate to ensure "progress". World Wars were fought involving the "disgruntled"; those and all other wars, failed to check population numbers enough. Maybe "clean" nukes? joc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Sooner or later, the glaciers will return. Arable land will be reduced by well over 50%. The cold and famine will reduce our numbers greatly. 100,000 years later, the survivors will have another go at it.
    If a tobo or a super volcano blows when the ice is here, we may once again be reduced to fewer than 10,000 people.
    Why worry about it?
    jocular and babe like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If some guy wants to kill some other guy, then he's not deserving of the "right" to live. He isn't granting that right to the other guy. How do we argue, then, that he deserves to have a right which he, in turn, will not grant to someone else?
    Are you suggesting that he should be killed?
    I think it would be too much trouble to kill him. Just let the disgruntled people kill each other.

    However, if he turns his gun on civilians, then yes, get rid of him. If it makes you feel better to lock him in a cage for his whole life rather than kill him outright, so he eventually dies of natural causes after a long confinement, then fine. Do that. I don't personally see a difference between killing someone and locking them away their whole life. To me, both are equally bad outcomes.




    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    How does this affect gun control? ..... Maybe we could assign a slightly smaller value to life and death. Let angry and disgruntled people kill one another. The sooner we're rid of them, the more time and energy we'll have to devote to improving conditions. Honestly. If some guy wants to kill some other guy, then he's not deserving of the "right" to live. He isn't granting that right to the other guy. How do we argue, then, that he deserves to have a right which he, in turn, will not grant to someone else?
    A few guys killing a few others here and there is not adequate to ensure "progress". World Wars were fought involving the "disgruntled"; those and all other wars, failed to check population numbers enough. Maybe "clean" nukes? joc
    Who proportionally suffered the most soldier casualties in that war? Would you say Germany did? They were the ones in that war who actually ran out of troops to send and had to start arming teenage boys. Nearly all the disgruntled males they sent out didn't make it back.

    Look how well they're doing now.
    jocular likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    Who proportionally suffered the most soldier casualties in that war? Would you say Germany did? They were the ones in that war who actually ran out of troops to send and had to start arming teenage boys. Nearly all the disgruntled males they sent out didn't make it back.

    Look how well they're doing now.
    The Germans had their "noses rubbed in shit" two major times, historically. The first began at Sarajevo, the aftermath denied Germany far too many issues based on National pride. The second came in the mid-1940s.

    That they are doing so well today can only be attributed to continuing National pride, IMO. joc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Sooner or later, the glaciers will return. Arable land will be reduced by well over 50%. The cold and famine will reduce our numbers greatly. 100,000 years later, the survivors will have another go at it.
    If a tobo or a super volcano blows when the ice is here, we may once again be reduced to fewer than 10,000 people.
    Why worry about it?
    Yours is one of the most poignant posts yet. No idea WTH a "tobo" is, don't really care, either, but the bottom line is, if the number 10,000 prevails, IMO, humanity is doomed. Good riddance, as far as all the other living beings are concerned, and, as far as I'm concerned. Been nice knowin' you! joc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    Who proportionally suffered the most soldier casualties in that war? Would you say Germany did? They were the ones in that war who actually ran out of troops to send and had to start arming teenage boys. Nearly all the disgruntled males they sent out didn't make it back.

    Look how well they're doing now.
    The Germans had their "noses rubbed in shit" two major times, historically. The first began at Sarajevo, the aftermath denied Germany far too many issues based on National pride. The second came in the mid-1940s.

    That they are doing so well today can only be attributed to continuing National pride, IMO. joc
    Perhaps the trouble with WW1 was precisely the opposite problem: Germany surrendered while it still had too many disgruntled males alive. Those guys were so ashamed of their defeat that many went on to become boozers, and the German economy subsequently collapsed. Finally Hitler came along and promised to make soldiers the "first citizens of Germany" or something like that, and the German economy got back on track (if only for a while.)

    People accused the SS of being just thugs dressed up in fancy trenchcoats, but I think those people were putting the cart before the horse. It's not like the SS organization showed up, and then all these normal people joined them and magically got transformed into thugs. I think it's the other way around. There were all these thugs gumming up the German economy, and along came the SS and managed to gather them up out of society and put them somewhere they would be busy, so the ordinary folk could finally do their work in relative peace.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    Who proportionally suffered the most soldier casualties in that war? Would you say Germany did? They were the ones in that war who actually ran out of troops to send and had to start arming teenage boys. Nearly all the disgruntled males they sent out didn't make it back.

    Look how well they're doing now.
    The Germans had their "noses rubbed in shit" two major times, historically. The first began at Sarajevo, the aftermath denied Germany far too many issues based on National pride. The second came in the mid-1940s.

    That they are doing so well today can only be attributed to continuing National pride, IMO. joc
    Perhaps the trouble with WW1 was precisely the opposite problem: Germany surrendered while it still had too many disgruntled males alive. Those guys were so ashamed of their defeat that many went on to become boozers, and the German economy subsequently collapsed. Finally Hitler came along and promised to make soldiers the "first citizens of Germany" or something like that, and the German economy got back on track (if only for a while.)

    People accused the SS of being just thugs dressed up in fancy trenchcoats, but I think those people were putting the cart before the horse. It's not like the SS organization showed up, and then all these normal people joined them and magically got transformed into thugs. I think it's the other way around. There were all these thugs gumming up the German economy, and along came the SS and managed to gather them up out of society and put them somewhere they would be busy, so the ordinary folk could finally do their work in relative peace.
    You pose an adroitly-woven question. I won't delve into the bullshit I wended through to post (you are not logged in, etc.). Germany's economy has had several serious "collapses", subsequent, as I understand it, to WW-I. My own personal experience related to post WW-2 Germany consists of marrying a German-born Polish girl whose parents were forcibly removed from Poland to work in the AG fields in Germany. Her parents married in Germany, following the end of the war, they emigrated to America, in 1963, brought 3 children with them, the eldest of which I found irresistible (she was 16). Today, I'd be in jail! This girl's tales of post-war conditions in Germany were most revealing: her Dad killed dogs, when he could, that providing the only MEAT for their table. Suzanne came to this country as a "citizen of none', imprinted on her passport. Born in Germany of Polish Parents in1947, she had NO CITIZENSHIP!

    Sorry for deviating off thread. My ex-wife's folks suffered more than the "tortures of the damned". In 1967, having established a comfortable life in America, her , father killed her mother, then himself October 22, 1967. My new wife was 20. I was 25. We persevered. You guys think you've had a rough time? Shit! You got NO IDEA! joc
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Joc.....my mother lived through WWII in Slovenia. I get it.....she actually started talking a little bit about it today, which she rarely does, because it is still distressing for her at the age of almost 90, hiding my uncle ...family killed in front of her...money not worth anything, trading to survive, being hungry....and then as usual....she stopped. People who lived those horrors, certainly have never forgotten them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If some guy wants to kill some other guy, then he's not deserving of the "right" to live. He isn't granting that right to the other guy. How do we argue, then, that he deserves to have a right which he, in turn, will not grant to someone else?
    Are you suggesting that he should be killed?
    However, if he turns his gun on civilians, then yes, get rid of him.
    Well, since you would want him killed, clearly you are not deserving of the "right" to live. You aren't granting that right to the other guy. How do we argue that you deserve to have a right which you, in turn, would not grant to someone else?
    Flick Montana likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I hate to invoke the old, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", but at some point we have to make the conscious decision that killing is not the answer.
    sculptor likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Sooner or later, the glaciers will return. Arable land will be reduced by well over 50%. The cold and famine will reduce our numbers greatly. 100,000 years later, the survivors will have another go at it.
    If a tobo or a super volcano blows when the ice is here, we may once again be reduced to fewer than 10,000 people.
    Why worry about it?
    Yours is one of the most poignant posts yet. No idea WTH a "tobo" is, don't really care, either, but the bottom line is, if the number 10,000 prevails, IMO, humanity is doomed. Good riddance, as far as all the other living beings are concerned, and, as far as I'm concerned. Been nice knowin' you! joc
    Tobo is a volcano which blew about 70,000 years ago, reducing the human(s?) population to an estimated less than 10,000. (a near extinction event, and claimed "genetic bottleneck").
    More recent evidence suggest that there were several refuges of sapiens sapiens, sapiens neanderthalensis, and denisovans who then crossbred as the earth went through a warming trend during the last glaciation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If some guy wants to kill some other guy, then he's not deserving of the "right" to live. He isn't granting that right to the other guy. How do we argue, then, that he deserves to have a right which he, in turn, will not grant to someone else?
    Are you suggesting that he should be killed?
    However, if he turns his gun on civilians, then yes, get rid of him.
    Well, since you would want him killed, clearly you are not deserving of the "right" to live. You aren't granting that right to the other guy. How do we argue that you deserve to have a right which you, in turn, would not grant to someone else?
    It's the idea of social contract. All those who participate in the contract should receive the benefits. Those who don't shouldn't.

    Others who agree not to kill me, I in turn agree not to kill. That's a fair trade. If they don't agree not to kill me, then I'm certainly not going to put myself out on their account. I don't believe that I have any obligation to be generous with others. Fair yes. Generous, no.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I hate to invoke the old, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", but at some point we have to make the conscious decision that killing is not the answer.
    Yeah, but in this case wouldn't it be the world becoming dead? And there's an overpopulation problem. So it might not be the worst thing to let a whole bunch of vengeful people kill each other off.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #241  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    To put it another way, the people most likely to shoot and kill one another are the unemployed. Typically the reason they're unemployed is because they lack useful job skills. Meaning they're not only unemployed, but also not very employable


    .The economy would have an awfully hard time improving so much that it can employ them at a good job in spite of their failings. And its likely they'll raise their children (if they went on to bear any) to be equally unemployable.

    However, the economy can afford to find graves for them. Save 20 generations of misery with a single death. Or focus all your attention on the present and treat all the human misery of the next generation as though it were unforseen. (Knowing full well that it was most certainly not unforseen).If people want to kill each other, maybe they'll live happier lives hoping to win.

    At least they live with hope instead of despair.
    jocular likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #242  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    thunderdome
    make it a contest
    a new reality tv show
    .................
    seriously kojax: You're getting a tad rad dad
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #243  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Well, since you would want him killed, clearly you are not deserving of the "right" to live. You aren't granting that right to the other guy. How do we argue that you deserve to have a right which you, in turn, would not grant to someone else?
    It's the idea of social contract. All those who participate in the contract should receive the benefits. Those who don't shouldn't.
    So you can kill anyone not participating in your social contract?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Others who agree not to kill me, I in turn agree not to kill. That's a fair trade. If they don't agree not to kill me, then I'm certainly not going to put myself out on their account. I don't believe that I have any obligation to be generous with others. Fair yes. Generous, no.
    But you were not killed. You are alive - which is how you are in a position to want someone killed.
    They currently still agree not to kill you. It is you that wants to kill them.
    But, by your own description, that means you should be killed.

    "If some guy wants to kill some other guy, then he's not deserving of the "right" to live."
    That sentence describes an endless cycle of killings.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #244  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Well, since you would want him killed, clearly you are not deserving of the "right" to live. You aren't granting that right to the other guy. How do we argue that you deserve to have a right which you, in turn, would not grant to someone else?
    It's the idea of social contract. All those who participate in the contract should receive the benefits. Those who don't shouldn't.
    So you can kill anyone not participating in your social contract?
    Hoping not to have misinterpreted you, or "move the goal posts". I'm just asking where the goal posts are so I can tell you whether I think the thing you said is past them or not. I must ask: Do you mean someone who's trying to kill me?

    My tentative answer is: if he's trying to kill me, then that would qualify as self defense.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Others who agree not to kill me, I in turn agree not to kill. That's a fair trade. If they don't agree not to kill me, then I'm certainly not going to put myself out on their account. I don't believe that I have any obligation to be generous with others. Fair yes. Generous, no.
    But you were not killed. You are alive - which is how you are in a position to want someone killed.
    They currently still agree not to kill you. It is you that wants to kill them.
    But, by your own description, that means you should be killed.
    Do I have reason to believe this person might try again? If the guy is honestly contrite, and makes it clear in believable terms that his attempt on my life was a true once off, and whatever he has against me is over, then yeah. I guess I'd forgive him.

    But you are totally misunderstanding the nature of contracts. They're only binding among those who agree to them, and the agreement itself is only toward other participants. I don't agree not to kill anyone at all. I only agree not to kill the other contract signers. If this guy is attempting to kill me, then he's not a contract signer, and my part of the contract has absolutely nothing at all to say about him.

    "If some guy wants to kill some other guy, then he's not deserving of the "right" to live."
    That sentence describes an endless cycle of killings.
    Not really. That's a myth. There's almost always a last man standing. Or in this case, a last group standing. The contract signers end up being that group. Everyone but them dies, and then they go on to enjoy their contract with each other.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #245  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Do you mean someone who's trying to kill me?
    My tentative answer is: if he's trying to kill me, then that would qualify as self defense.
    No. Not trying to kill you.
    He's simply "some guy [who] wants to kill some other guy" - as you described.

    Do you think that you can kill anyone not participating in your social contract?


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Do I have reason to believe this person might try again?
    Try what again?
    He's "some guy [who] wants to kill some other guy" - as you described.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    But you are totally misunderstanding the nature of contracts. They're only binding among those who agree to them, and the agreement itself is only toward other participants. I don't agree not to kill anyone at all. I only agree not to kill the other contract signers. If this guy is attempting to kill me, then he's not a contract signer, and my part of the contract has absolutely nothing at all to say about him.
    You are the one that raised the issue of social contracts.
    If they have nothing to do with "some guy [who] wants to kill some other guy" then I don't know why you mentioned it.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    That sentence describes an endless cycle of killings.
    Not really. That's a myth. There's almost always a last man standing. Or in this case, a last group standing. The contract signers end up being that group. Everyone but them dies, and then they go on to enjoy their contract with each other.
    Well that's ok then. As long as not everybody is killed, then that's fine. Let the slaughter commence!


    "If some guy wants to kill some other guy, then he's not deserving of the "right" to live."
    This describes you.
    Your own description sentences you to death.
    According to your own rules, you are not deserving of the "right" to life.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #246  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    "last man standing"

    hahahahaha
    what a silly phrase
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #247  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Do you mean someone who's trying to kill me?
    My tentative answer is: if he's trying to kill me, then that would qualify as self defense.
    No. Not trying to kill you.
    He's simply "some guy [who] wants to kill some other guy" - as you described.

    Do you think that you can kill anyone not participating in your social contract?
    Well.... to be perfectly clear..... I do not believe I "can" kill him. Clearly in today's society, with the USA's laws, I'd go to jail, of course, if I even attempted it.

    Do I believe it would be morally wrong if I could and I did? No. I don't think it would be morally wrong. I think that it is only morally wrong to kill people who are participants in the social contract (The contract wherein all participants agree not to kill other participants.)

    The ideal case from history would be duels. There was a time in the USA when one man could challenge another to a duel to the death, and if the other agreed, they could duel and one could kill the other, and it was all perfectly legal. I see nothing wrong with that. I don't think suicide is wrong, because the victim of suicide consents to die. Dueling is very similar. Both parties consented.




    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Do I have reason to believe this person might try again?
    Try what again?
    He's "some guy [who] wants to kill some other guy" - as you described.
    I was assuming this person had attempted and failed to kill me. That seemed to be what you were suggesting. Did I misinterpret your statement?

    If I have reason to believe he's going to make another attempt, then killing him first is an act of self preservation.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    But you are totally misunderstanding the nature of contracts. They're only binding among those who agree to them, and the agreement itself is only toward other participants. I don't agree not to kill anyone at all. I only agree not to kill the other contract signers. If this guy is attempting to kill me, then he's not a contract signer, and my part of the contract has absolutely nothing at all to say about him.
    You are the one that raised the issue of social contracts.
    If they have nothing to do with "some guy [who] wants to kill some other guy" then I don't know why you mentioned it.
    The contract is the only basis of my obligation not to kill. So if it is silent, then it permits it.

    Permitting doesn't mean encouraging, though. It's just permitting.

    On that note.... if this guy isn't an adherent to the contract, then he has no moral obligation not to kill. He never agreed to be bound by any moral obligations, and therefore is not bound by them . However, he also doesn't have any moral protection against being killed by anyone either.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    That sentence describes an endless cycle of killings.
    Not really. That's a myth. There's almost always a last man standing. Or in this case, a last group standing. The contract signers end up being that group. Everyone but them dies, and then they go on to enjoy their contract with each other.
    Well that's ok then. As long as not everybody is killed, then that's fine. Let the slaughter commence!
    Do you have a better plan?


    "If some guy wants to kill some other guy, then he's not deserving of the "right" to live."
    This describes you.
    Your own description sentences you to death.
    According to your own rules, you are not deserving of the "right" to life.
    No..... My rules state that I must not kill adherents to the contract, and that adherents to the contract must not kill me.

    Unless I attempt to kill another adherent to the contract, my status in the contract will not change at all.

    If this guy isn't an adherent, then he has no moral obligation not to kill me, and I have no moral obligation not to kill him. Other adherents still have a moral obligation not to kill me.
    Last edited by kojax; December 9th, 2013 at 10:59 PM.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #248  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    thunderdome
    make it a contest
    a new reality tv show
    .................
    seriously kojax: You're getting a tad rad dad
    I don't really care about orthodoxy. I wish more people would disregard it.

    Valuing life is a Christian ideal. Non Christians don't always agree with it. Until a person is allowed to freely not value it, Christianity will always be a state religion.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #249  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Suicide leaves those remaining in grief, horror, and trying to figure out how they could have stopped it. It is NOT benign.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #250  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    No..... My rules state that I must not kill adherents to the contract, and that adherents to the contract must not kill me.
    So - would it be a correct summary to say that you have no moral objection to killing anyone who doesn't adhere to your social contract?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #251  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    I favor:

    1. Taxing all firearms sold in the U.S. Some weapons might have a higher tax such as weapons with high capacity magazines. Use the money generated by the tax to finance buy back programs that destroy circulating weapons.

    2. Universal background checks for weapon sales to include gun shows etc.

    3. Increasing training requirements for concealed carry permits and adding "keep your nose clean" rules so that these permits can be revoked for people who act irresponsibly in a variety of areas including: drunk driving, domestic violence, assaults, failure to obey instructions from law enforcement etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #252  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I've add to 3. a second layer of training and permit requirements for the most obviously dangerous weapons--particularly weapons without safeties, semi-auto with more than 10 round capacity.

    4. Permit the CDC and other agencies to study gun related safety issues and sponsor education to reduce gun deaths based on objective evidence.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #253  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    I have no problems with guns...as in hunting rifles.

    I only object to semi-automatics, etc. etc. etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #254  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Babe, I was just trying to balance the "right to bear arms" with the "right to not get shot".

    So although I am not into semi-auto's right now either, the people who want to own these weapons need to prove they can be responsible.

    Thus, I like Lynx's addition.

    It might have saved the wide receiver in NYC from putting a round in his thigh as Glock's don't have traditional safeties.

    I am amazed that police departments use them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #255  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    Babe, I was just trying to balance the "right to bear arms" with the "right to not get shot".

    So although I am not into semi-auto's right now either, the people who want to own these weapons need to prove they can be responsible.

    Thus, I like Lynx's addition.

    It might have saved the wide receiver in NYC from putting a round in his thigh as Glock's don't have traditional safeties.

    I am amazed that police departments use them.
    Then my dear, we are on the same page!
    dedo likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #256  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    No..... My rules state that I must not kill adherents to the contract, and that adherents to the contract must not kill me.
    So - would it be a correct summary to say that you have no moral objection to killing anyone who doesn't adhere to your social contract?
    Yes. I see nothing wrong with killing those who don't adhere to the social contract.

    You're making this too complicated. Ask yourself : why is it not morally wrong for a soldier in time of war to kill an enemy soldier in time of war? I'd say the answer is simple: both sides are in consent to the terms of the conflict.

    I think you are assuming, that absolutely everyone, if given the right opportunity, would opt in. And if anyone doesn't opt in it must be because of circumstances that have befallen them which were out of their control. That's ridiculous. That assumes there is no such thing as free will. That all human beings are simply the product of their programming.

    If we're all just biological machines, then why do you care if any of us live or die? Why would a human falling off a cliff evoke any more emotion from you than seeing an automobile fall off a cliff?

    But if we're not just biological machines, then there must exist at least a few of us who are utterly immune to rehabilitation. People who have chosen a direction, and will never abandon it while they are alive. There would be quite a few murderer inmates in American prisons who, if you asked them candidly whether they feel any remorse over their actions- and they didn't think their answer would impact their parole hearings - they would tell you they don't.





    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    I favor:

    1. Taxing all firearms sold in the U.S. Some weapons might have a higher tax such as weapons with high capacity magazines. Use the money generated by the tax to finance buy back programs that destroy circulating weapons.

    2. Universal background checks for weapon sales to include gun shows etc.

    3. Increasing training requirements for concealed carry permits and adding "keep your nose clean" rules so that these permits can be revoked for people who act irresponsibly in a variety of areas including: drunk driving, domestic violence, assaults, failure to obey instructions from law enforcement etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I've add to 3. a second layer of training and permit requirements for the most obviously dangerous weapons--particularly weapons without safeties, semi-auto with more than 10 round capacity.

    4. Permit the CDC and other agencies to study gun related safety issues and sponsor education to reduce gun deaths based on objective evidence.
    Even though these are practical, sensible solutions that don't actually require us to discard the right to bear arms, I'm sure if an anti-gun group were conducting a survey, they'd count both of you as "being in favor of gun control", and thereby argue that you are among those Americans who want to go the same road as Canada and simply ban all firearms.

    That's why I don't trust the survey. Its questions were too non-specific.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #257  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Yes. I see nothing wrong with killing those who don't adhere to the social contract.
    So - if anyone steals something or hurts someone then there is nothing wrong with killing them?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    You're making this too complicated. Ask yourself : why is it not morally wrong for a soldier in time of war to kill an enemy soldier in time of war? I'd say the answer is simple: both sides are in consent to the terms of the conflict.
    But your stance also means you have nothing against killing civilians. If they don't adhere to your social contract then they are all fair game.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I think you are assuming, that absolutely everyone, if given the right opportunity, would opt in. And if anyone doesn't opt in it must be because of circumstances that have befallen them which were out of their control. That's ridiculous. That assumes there is no such thing as free will. That all human beings are simply the product of their programming.
    I am not assuming anything about who opts in.
    I was simply asking about your position on people who have not.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If we're all just biological machines, then why do you care if any of us live or die? Why would a human falling off a cliff evoke any more emotion from you than seeing an automobile fall off a cliff?
    Because that is how some of us biological machines are programmed to respond.
    But I don't think we should started debating whether we have a soul. That seems well off topic; almost off forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    But if we're not just biological machines, then there must exist at least a few of us who are utterly immune to rehabilitation. People who have chosen a direction, and will never abandon it while they are alive. There would be quite a few murderer inmates in American prisons who, if you asked them candidly whether they feel any remorse over their actions- and they didn't think their answer would impact their parole hearings - they would tell you they don't.
    I think that even if we are just biological machines, then there could* be people immune to rehabilitation.
    But I am not sure why that means we can kill them.

    *I do think those types of people exist.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #258  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Yes. I see nothing wrong with killing those who don't adhere to the social contract.
    So - if anyone steals something or hurts someone then there is nothing wrong with killing them?
    Steals? Hurts? If they steal, then they're breaking the no-stealing social contract. That's a different contract.

    If they're not part of the no-stealing contract then I'm entitled to steal from them. If they're not part of the no-hurting contract, but they're not murderers, then I'm entitled to hurt them, but not to kill them.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    You're making this too complicated. Ask yourself : why is it not morally wrong for a soldier in time of war to kill an enemy soldier in time of war? I'd say the answer is simple: both sides are in consent to the terms of the conflict.
    But your stance also means you have nothing against killing civilians. If they don't adhere to your social contract then they are all fair game.
    All civilians do adhere to it.

    Whether they've formally joined it or not is impossible to determine. A person might lie and say they're joining it. But if they commit acts that fall outside of its limitations on behavior, then it's clear they aren't part of it anymore.

    Much like how in Afghanistan, soldiers are often attacked by people who look like civilians. But once they've opened fire, then you know they're not civilians.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I think you are assuming, that absolutely everyone, if given the right opportunity, would opt in. And if anyone doesn't opt in it must be because of circumstances that have befallen them which were out of their control. That's ridiculous. That assumes there is no such thing as free will. That all human beings are simply the product of their programming.
    I am not assuming anything about who opts in.
    I was simply asking about your position on people who have not.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If we're all just biological machines, then why do you care if any of us live or die? Why would a human falling off a cliff evoke any more emotion from you than seeing an automobile fall off a cliff?
    Because that is how some of us biological machines are programmed to respond.
    But I don't think we should started debating whether we have a soul. That seems well off topic; almost off forum.
    Debating the morality of killing someone is probably more suitable for the philosophy section. But debating the practicality of people being armed so they are able to kill one another is political. Why don't we just focus on the practical aspects, then, and leave morality out of it?

    From a practical stand point, if you prepare for war, then you are all the less likely to ever have to go to war. If you don't prepare, then war has a tendency to show up on your doorstep unannounced. It may still show up unannounced even if you do prepare for it, but if you're prepared then at least you'll probably win, rather than lose.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    But if we're not just biological machines, then there must exist at least a few of us who are utterly immune to rehabilitation. People who have chosen a direction, and will never abandon it while they are alive. There would be quite a few murderer inmates in American prisons who, if you asked them candidly whether they feel any remorse over their actions- and they didn't think their answer would impact their parole hearings - they would tell you they don't.
    I think that even if we are just biological machines, then there could* be people immune to rehabilitation.
    But I am not sure why that means we can kill them.

    *I do think those types of people exist.
    What would you prefer to do with them? Lock them in a cage until they die of old age? Is that better? If so, then why is it better? What kind of life can you have in a cage?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #259  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Yes. I see nothing wrong with killing those who don't adhere to the social contract.
    So - if anyone steals something or hurts someone then there is nothing wrong with killing them?
    Steals? Hurts? If they steal, then they're breaking the no-stealing social contract. That's a different contract.
    If they're not part of the no-stealing contract then I'm entitled to steal from them. If they're not part of the no-hurting contract, but they're not murderers, then I'm entitled to hurt them, but not to kill them.
    You only mentioned one social contract.
    How many are there?
    And why do some broken social contracts allow the death of others and some not?
    Is it just an "eye for an eye" rule?
    And do they have any say in this? Or can you just kill anyone that you feel has broken your social contract?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    You're making this too complicated. Ask yourself : why is it not morally wrong for a soldier in time of war to kill an enemy soldier in time of war? I'd say the answer is simple: both sides are in consent to the terms of the conflict.
    But your stance also means you have nothing against killing civilians. If they don't adhere to your social contract then they are all fair game.
    All civilians do adhere to it.
    Whether they've formally joined it or not is impossible to determine. A person might lie and say they're joining it. But if they commit acts that fall outside of its limitations on behavior, then it's clear they aren't part of it anymore.

    Much like how in Afghanistan, soldiers are often attacked by people who look like civilians. But once they've opened fire, then you know they're not civilians.
    So it is just an "eye for an eye" thing?

    So, you have no problem killing someone else who had killed someone.
    And if you killed that person, there is no reason why someone else shouldn't kill you.
    Afterall, an eye for an eye.
    Your own rule says that you could/should be killed.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    From a practical stand point, if you prepare for war, then you are all the less likely to ever have to go to war. If you don't prepare, then war has a tendency to show up on your doorstep unannounced.
    Clearly that is not true.
    Look to America for an example of a country that continually prepares for war and continually goes to war.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    What would you prefer to do with them? Lock them in a cage until they die of old age? Is that better? If so, then why is it better? What kind of life can you have in a cage?
    Locking someone in a cage is much better.
    The first obvious reason that imprisonment is better, is that if someone is wrongly convicted, at least they can be released.
    The second reason is that it's cheaper.

    What reasons do you have for thinking that killing them is better?
    Ximlab likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #260  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Yes. I see nothing wrong with killing those who don't adhere to the social contract.
    So - if anyone steals something or hurts someone then there is nothing wrong with killing them?
    Steals? Hurts? If they steal, then they're breaking the no-stealing social contract. That's a different contract.
    If they're not part of the no-stealing contract then I'm entitled to steal from them. If they're not part of the no-hurting contract, but they're not murderers, then I'm entitled to hurt them, but not to kill them.
    You only mentioned one social contract.
    How many are there?
    And why do some broken social contracts allow the death of others and some not?
    Is it just an "eye for an eye" rule?
    And do they have any say in this? Or can you just kill anyone that you feel has broken your social contract?
    One contract for each behavior. I also like to think of them as "truces"

    It's not eye for an eye because you're not required to kill someone who breaks the no killing contract. But you are are freely allowed to kill them (and often it would be prudent to do so, if you think they may be gunning for you, so as to avoid dying. )

    As for the no stealing contract, you can steal more from them than they steal from you and that's fine. If they don't want to live in a world where stealing is forbidden, then they don't have to. But they'd better be ready to live in a world where that is true in all respects. Including they'd better be fine with being the victims of theft.

    I guess that goes for murderers too. If they want to live in a world where killing is ok, then fine. But they'd better be prepared to be the one that dies if they're going to expect other people to be prepared to be the ones that die.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    You're making this too complicated. Ask yourself : why is it not morally wrong for a soldier in time of war to kill an enemy soldier in time of war? I'd say the answer is simple: both sides are in consent to the terms of the conflict.
    But your stance also means you have nothing against killing civilians. If they don't adhere to your social contract then they are all fair game.
    All civilians do adhere to it.
    Whether they've formally joined it or not is impossible to determine. A person might lie and say they're joining it. But if they commit acts that fall outside of its limitations on behavior, then it's clear they aren't part of it anymore.

    Much like how in Afghanistan, soldiers are often attacked by people who look like civilians. But once they've opened fire, then you know they're not civilians.
    So it is just an "eye for an eye" thing?

    So, you have no problem killing someone else who had killed someone.
    And if you killed that person, there is no reason why someone else shouldn't kill you.
    Afterall, an eye for an eye.
    Your own rule says that you could/should be killed.
    No. You're being dishonest.

    I said I had no problem killing someone who had killed (or attempted to kill) an adherent to the no killing contract. I've been painstakingly clear about that and if you've misunderstood me then that is entirely your own fault.

    If they killed a non-adherent, that wouldn't give me the right to kill them. Remember the no killing contract only applies to other adherents. You're not agreeing to refrain from killing non adherents.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    From a practical stand point, if you prepare for war, then you are all the less likely to ever have to go to war. If you don't prepare, then war has a tendency to show up on your doorstep unannounced.
    Clearly that is not true.
    Look to America for an example of a country that continually prepares for war and continually goes to war.
    I said it could still show up unannounced. I also said if it does show up unannounced, and you've prepared for it then you'll probably win. The USA usually wins its wars.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    What would you prefer to do with them? Lock them in a cage until they die of old age? Is that better? If so, then why is it better? What kind of life can you have in a cage?
    Locking someone in a cage is much better.
    The first obvious reason that imprisonment is better, is that if someone is wrongly convicted, at least they can be released.
    The second reason is that it's cheaper.

    What reasons do you have for thinking that killing them is better?
    Would releasing them really restore the lost time? Death is just lost time. Instead of dying at say.... 90, you die at 25 or 30 or whenever. You lose the years you might have had.

    Anyway I'm not sure killing them is better. I think both outcomes are equally bad for them. If imprisoning them for their whole life is indeed cheaper, then clearly that is the better option. I'd hate to spend more money on that person than necessary.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #261  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It's not eye for an eye because you're not required to kill someone who breaks the no killing contract.
    Just because there is no compunction to exact revenge, that doesn't stop it being "an eye for an eye".
    The basic logic is the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I said it could still show up unannounced.
    You also said "if you prepare for war, then you are all the less likely to ever have to go to war." - which is the claim I was showing to be false.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I said I had no problem killing someone who had killed (or attempted to kill) an adherent to the no killing contract. I've been painstakingly clear about that and if you've misunderstood me then that is entirely your own fault.
    If they killed a non-adherent, that wouldn't give me the right to kill them. Remember the no killing contract only applies to other adherents. You're not agreeing to refrain from killing non adherents.
    So - you can kill someone IF they have killed someone that you think they shouldn't?
    Which also allows others to kill you IF they think you shouldn't have killed that person?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #262  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Eat what you kill.
    lemme rephrase
    Eat what you kill---(ok ?)

    simple?
    yet profound when it comes to killing your fellow man?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #263  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It's not eye for an eye because you're not required to kill someone who breaks the no killing contract.
    Just because there is no compunction to exact revenge, that doesn't stop it being "an eye for an eye".
    The basic logic is the same.
    Or maybe the logic of the addage "eye for an eye and everyone ends up blind" is what is flawed.

    If one side has a big enough tactical advantage, then most of the eyes will be lost on only one side of the battle field. The contract's adherents have the advantage of numbers. It's an overwhelmingly huge advantage, so I think they'll win.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I said it could still show up unannounced.
    You also said "if you prepare for war, then you are all the less likely to ever have to go to war." - which is the claim I was showing to be false.
    Ukraine has the biggest army in Europe. Haven't seen them fighting. Russia's had some skirmishes in Georgia. Nothing serious, but still...

    Also none of America's wars have occurred on its own soil in over 100 years. (Unless you count 911 as being part of the war in Afghanistan, or one incident in WW2 when some Japanese balloons landed on American shores.)

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I said I had no problem killing someone who had killed (or attempted to kill) an adherent to the no killing contract. I've been painstakingly clear about that and if you've misunderstood me then that is entirely your own fault.
    If they killed a non-adherent, that wouldn't give me the right to kill them. Remember the no killing contract only applies to other adherents. You're not agreeing to refrain from killing non adherents.
    So - you can kill someone IF they have killed someone that you think they shouldn't?
    Which also allows others to kill you IF they think you shouldn't have killed that person?
    Interesting question. I'm glad you're keeping the discussion interesting.

    If their version of the contract forbids killing anyone for any reason, even non adherents, then of course they can't kill me. They'd be violating their own contract.

    If their version of the contract allows killing non-adherents, then they would have no reason to kill me.

    If their version of the contract allows killing non-adherents, but contains a special exception for the person who I killed (making me now a non-adherent), then they could kill me. That would be a very quirky contract.

    The version of the contract which I am suggesting seems to me to be the most practical version.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #264  
    who sees through things
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    UK now, US before
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    For example, in the UK there is a housing shortage. We are (comparatively) a densely populated country.
    Politicians are always looking for ways to resolve the housing problem.
    But you will never see them suggest that people should have fewer children.
    This partly has to do with right-wing fears of Britain having a non-white British majority. Any attempts to address population issues related to housing have had to do with clamping down on immigration.

    Gotta keep popping out those white British babies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #265  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Alec Bing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    For example, in the UK there is a housing shortage. We are (comparatively) a densely populated country.
    Politicians are always looking for ways to resolve the housing problem.
    But you will never see them suggest that people should have fewer children.
    This partly has to do with right-wing fears of Britain having a non-white British majority. Any attempts to address population issues related to housing have had to do with clamping down on immigration.
    Gotta keep popping out those white British babies.
    Citation required.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #266  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Why are Canadians (and Brits) so worried about guns? (and) mace, they confiscated it!!! It's not even lethal!!!
    I am Canadian.

    The thing we've got working for us here, is a non-lethal and mostly-harmless "playing field". It's best understood from the criminal's point of view. The criminal is not going to bring tools to the job that he doesn't need, that only incriminate him if, say, he's apprehended on suspicion and searched. He doesn't need a gun because he's facing unarmed citizens who'll probably just back away from a verbal threat. He assumes he can simply run from a botched attempt no matter what.

    If it's a gangland crime that's different. Since the would-be criminal assumes his target has a defensive, even paranoid attitude, the right tool for the job is probably a gun drawn first, and "put your hands up". Sometimes these idiots use automatic weapons on each other. They've fallen into an arms race.

    If it's south of the border, you may guess the citizen you're robbing has a weapon and will use it if given the chance. So you'd better bring a gun and present yours first. You might need to shoot just to escape unharmed.

    We have criminals in Canada, same as you. Our criminals could acquire guns if they want to. We prefer they don't want to. By observing what's wrong in the US we understand what we should do... or rather shouldn't do. Private paranoia could trump that and we'd go the way of America anyway, but apparently Canadians add an ethical consideration: if I push an arms race against criminals, how does that affect my neighbour? Then guns owned for self-defense become a harm to society, merely by their known presence. And for the whole thing to work (and it is working) we must remain united in this.

    So now you understand why Canadians react to defensive weapon ownership, like it's an attack. It is an indirect attack, because it puts guns in the hands of criminals.
    Ascended and citizenzen like this.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Did not graduate on time. Should I be worried?
    By Sleepyhead in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: August 14th, 2013, 06:16 PM
  2. I am worried Please help.
    By Osborne in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: May 22nd, 2012, 02:38 AM
  3. Something to be very worried about...
    By w1z4rd in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 28th, 2006, 05:18 PM
  4. Psychologist claims Brits have 'peculiar deferential smiles'
    By silylene in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: May 26th, 2006, 10:12 AM
  5. microsoft, getting worried
    By goodgod3rd in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 20th, 2005, 12:18 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •