Do you let your intuition guide you on environmental issues as well? Intuition only goes so far.
Why are environmental issues immoral/unethical? This is in response to the deleterious effects of ignorance, a byproduct of people who have strong opinions of morality combined with ignorance and an unwillingness to research and educate themselves. If a moral/ethical person is ignorant, you can just teach them.... You act as if I haven't been trying to educate anon, yet he refuses to listen. Furthermore, scroll back a little and look at the words of Spendulus. It seems pretty hard to "teach" anti-coercion disciples anything. First, they would have to volunteer to learn.  this is ridiculous, if im anything its willing to learn. im CONSTANTLY refining my understandings and changing my positions. *note* i do have firstassent blocked because hes mental retard, so its true that im not actively trying to learn anything from him. ill seek to learn from him as soon as i need advise on strategies for winning the special olympics. anyway go ahead. im volunteering to learn. teach me why i ought not oppose coercion. You're not willing to learn. And your post shows who the fucktard is. Seriously, dude, if only you knew how ignorant and obtuse you are. |
|
|
|
Maybe the answer isn't to tell people what to do, but to teach people how to think?
On the second point, obviously. On the first, do you advocate distributing guns to criminals? I don't advocate doing the impossible, as you propose. I didn't propose anything to you. I did ask you a question, and it appears I haven't received an answer. Let me rephrase it. Do you condone the current case in the U.S. where criminals are regularly supplied with guns by gun buyers and gun sellers either through their ineptitude or deliberate intent? Only as much as I condone that jumping off a building causes one's face to be lethally smashed in. Do I like it? No. But I don't pretend that there is something that can be done about it. As much as I'd love to be able to float in the air, or keep criminals from getting tools to help them commit crime easier, I understand that my wishes are just that, wishes. Finally a post where you admit some sensible things. You admit: 1. You don't like the idea that criminals can get guns. 2. You admit that ultimately, criminals source their guns from gun buyers, gun owners and gun sellers. 3. You admit guns allow criminals to commit their crimes easier. |
|
|
|
I didn't propose anything to you. I did ask you a question, and it appears I haven't received an answer. Let me rephrase it. Do you condone the current case in the U.S. where criminals are regularly supplied with guns by gun buyers, gun owners, and gun sellers either through their ineptitude or deliberate intent?
We have enough laws that all adult citizens are criminals. Maybe you want to rephrase again? I don't need to rephrase again. Your statement here has no merit, since you're implying the concept of matter of degree has no relevance. |
|
|
|
Maybe the answer isn't to tell people what to do, but to teach people how to think?
On the second point, obviously. On the first, do you advocate distributing guns to criminals? I don't advocate doing the impossible, as you propose. I didn't propose anything to you. I did ask you a question, and it appears I haven't received an answer. Let me rephrase it. Do you condone the current case in the U.S. where criminals are regularly supplied with guns by gun buyers, gun owners, and gun sellers either through their ineptitude or deliberate intent? |
|
|
|
Interesting statistics here:  An excellent example of why guns are so much worse than the others. Guns are listed at 20 percent, and yet account for some 75 percent of all homicides. |
|
|
|
For the record: I'd rather be shot in the heart than beaten to death. But more than anything, I'd rather not be attacked at all.
Would you rather be shot in the heart from twenty feet away, or have someone throw punches at you from twenty feet away? |
|
|
|
Maybe it will be the case that such "empowering" technology will ultimately be the undoing of us all. Maybe one day we'll all be able to make much worse things in our own homes, and some crackpot will destroy us all. Who knows? Is there some natural law that says the inevitable technological achievements of the human race will always result in good?
On the other hand, maybe counter-technologies will arise simultaneously, such that detection of any such devices on anybody's person out on the streets will be trivial. Again, who knows?
Maybe the answer isn't to tell people what to do, but to teach people how to think? On the second point, obviously. On the first, do you advocate distributing guns to criminals? |
|
|
|
So, why focus on guns? There are way more deaths every year from people in possession of cars  Because there is no utilitarian value in keeping yourself from being killed, unless you are a criminal, then by all means, use gun control to do nothing but disarm innocent victims so you effectively cannot be killed in self-defense by them. There are many many other ways to avoid being killed by criminals that you're so eager to arm with guns. Criminals not armed with guns, prudence, and a socially responsible government are the solution. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Wild West is on its way out. So, how do you keep criminals, or anyone else for that matter, from getting guns when anyone is able to make one easily in the privacy of their home? Maybe it will be the case that such "empowering" technology will ultimately be the undoing of us all. Maybe one day we'll all be able to make much worse things in our own homes, and some crackpot will destroy us all. Who knows? Is there some natural law that says the inevitable technological achievements of the human race will always result in good? On the other hand, maybe counter-technologies will arise simultaneously, such that detection of any such devices on anybody's person out on the streets will be trivial. Again, who knows? |
|
|
|
So, why focus on guns? There are way more deaths every year from people in possession of cars Because there is no utilitarian value in keeping yourself from being killed, unless you are a criminal, then by all means, use gun control to do nothing but disarm innocent victims so you effectively cannot be killed in self-defense by them. There are many many other ways to avoid being killed by criminals that you're so eager to arm with guns. Criminals not armed with guns, prudence, and a socially responsible government are the solution. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Wild West is on its way out. |
|
|
|
So, why focus on guns? There are way more deaths every year from people in possession of cars This again? It's called utilitarian value. It's been discussed. |
|
|
|
But they likely wouldn't matter, and here's why. Basically, people that either grew up around firearms, who decided to learn about them, who are familiar with hunting, or who have had military or police style training know A LOT MORE THAN YOU. Now don't be offended - this happens in virtually every discussion where a liberal progressive tries to talk to what he thinks are "gun nuts".
If you know so much, how come you don't grasp some of the basics? Furthermore, what does it matter what your own personal opinion is regarding how adept you are at using firearms? The chances of you causing injury to yourself or someone else while in the possession of a firearm is infinitely greater than those who are not in possession of a firearm. Do you understand that all gun deaths are caused by those in possession of a firearm? They are never caused by those not in possession of firearms. All homicides, all suicides and accidents caused by guns are caused by those in possession of firearms. You seem to think that your claim as to proper gun usage eliminates gun deaths. It doesn't. |
|
|
|
Notice how about 75 percent of homicides in the U.S. are by gun? For the United States:
Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
2011: 3.6
2010: 3.5
2009: 3.7
2008: 4.0
2007: 4.1
2006: 4.2
2005: 4.1
2004: 3.9
2003: 4.1
2002: 4.1
2001: 3.9
2000: 3.8
1999: 3.8
1998: 3.3
1993: 7.0
|
|
|
|
That basically matches this post I made earlier: Some statistics for Japan:
Homicides (any method)
2008: 582
2007: 553
2006: 621
2005: 637
2004: 703
2003: 759
2002: 784
2001: 776
2000: 818
1999: 834
1998: 851
1997: 755
1996: 719
1995: 759
Rate of Homicide per 100,000 People (any method)
2008: 0.5
2007: 0.4
2006: 0.5
2005: 0.5
2004: 0.6
2003: 0.6
2002: 0.6
2001: 0.6
2000: 0.7
1999: 0.7
1998: 0.7
1997: 0.6
1996: 0.6
1995: 0.6
1994: 0.6
Gun Homicides
2008: 11
2002: 47
2001: 56
1997: 34
1996: 36
1995: 42
Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
2008: 0.09
2002: 0.04
2001: 0.04
1997: 0.03
1996: 0.03
1995: 0.03
1994: 0.02
|
|
|
|
.....
In today's age, with existing technology, I'm against the draft. And I'm willing to bet you, that most of those in this country that sign up for the military are on your side when it comes to gun rights.
It doesn't matter if you are for or against conscription. It does not matter if new military enlistees have a particular viewpoint on gun rights. Obviously if a country could entice young men into fighting with promise of glory and bravery then it would not need a draft. So your response has nothing to do with my point. Here it is again. it is precisely the large governments that historically have sucked young 16-18 year olds into going to war using idealistic and patriotic imagery and propaganda. It is precisely those governments that have caused them to get half their faces blown off.So you're somehow trying to say that because organization G causes the group S to get their faces blown off, that somehow my statement about subculture L seemingly waiting for the day when X happens, might result in some of subculture's members in getting their faces blown off? Let me understand then: you're saying that because something happens, my remark about something unrelated happening holds no value? Interesting. |
|
|
|
Do they have the right to fail themselves? Is that what you're asking? Why don't you ask yourself that question and provide the answer?
If the metric of "fail themselves" is disagreement with you, then yes, they have the right to disagree with you, and "fail themselves". And where does that leave them, in the end? Free? Civilized behavior does not arise magically. It arrives through sharing of knowledge and cooperation. There are better examples in this world. Or at least ideas which can be merged.
You do not seek to know them or cooperate with them, you seek to bend them to your will, and to tell them how to be. Yes, you could set a better example of civilisation. Your current example reeks of supercilious condemnation and dictatorial imperialism. How tiring. Are you sixteen, and carrying the torch of rebellion because you want a cause as bad as you want to lose your virginity? That's how you sound, honestly. You have no interest in an improved society. You just want to cry out how wronged you feel, as you bask in amenities realized by your government while others have less. And yet you deny what could be, for you probably crave a fight, fantasizing about taking up arms with your fellow rebels, until half your face is blown off. Ew. This digression into your fantasies of the sexual desires of your imagined 16yr old is very much out of place, especially with you ending your fantasy in such a bloody way. Seek therapy. Or Self reflection. Consider that you are looking to influence a foreign group that disagree with your version of the ideal homogeneous authoritarian submission. You picked this fight, no one is trying to convince you to change, so long as you can contain your personal perversity to the consenting. I picked this fight? How strange. I didn't create this thread. Someone else did, and I merely presented my position. My recent words are a reaction to your most recent visceral post, commenting of reekings and getting up in arms as if discussing stats from various cultures in comparison to the U.S. is akin to war. You do indeed sound like I described you precisely because of the words you're using. One more comment for FirstAscent. You said... Are you sixteen, and carrying the torch of rebellion because you want a cause..... yet you deny what could be, for you probably crave a fight, fantasizing about taking up arms with your fellow rebels, until half your face is blown off.I would like to humbly point out (not trying to foment more of a flame war here) that it is precisely the large governments that historically have sucked young 16-18 year olds into going to war using idealistic and patriotic imagery and propaganda. It is precisely those governments that have caused them to get half their faces blown off. The same type of governments that "know best", right? That have implemented progressive propaganda campaigns to create a "better society". Little problem there, LOL... In today's age, with existing technology, I'm against the draft. And I'm willing to bet you, that most of those in this country that sign up for the military are on your side when it comes to gun rights. |
|
|
|
Do they have the right to fail themselves? Is that what you're asking? Why don't you ask yourself that question and provide the answer?
If the metric of "fail themselves" is disagreement with you, then yes, they have the right to disagree with you, and "fail themselves". And where does that leave them, in the end? Free? Civilized behavior does not arise magically. It arrives through sharing of knowledge and cooperation. There are better examples in this world. Or at least ideas which can be merged.
You do not seek to know them or cooperate with them, you seek to bend them to your will, and to tell them how to be. Yes, you could set a better example of civilisation. Your current example reeks of supercilious condemnation and dictatorial imperialism. How tiring. Are you sixteen, and carrying the torch of rebellion because you want a cause as bad as you want to lose your virginity? That's how you sound, honestly. You have no interest in an improved society. You just want to cry out how wronged you feel, as you bask in amenities realized by your government while others have less. And yet you deny what could be, for you probably crave a fight, fantasizing about taking up arms with your fellow rebels, until half your face is blown off. Ew. This digression into your fantasies of the sexual desires of your imagined 16yr old is very much out of place, especially with you ending your fantasy in such a bloody way. Seek therapy. Or Self reflection. Consider that you are looking to influence a foreign group that disagree with your version of the ideal homogeneous authoritarian submission. You picked this fight, no one is trying to convince you to change, so long as you can contain your personal perversity to the consenting. I picked this fight? How strange. I didn't create this thread. Someone else did, and I merely presented my position. My recent words are a reaction to your most recent visceral post, commenting of reekings and getting up in arms as if discussing stats from various cultures in comparison to the U.S. is akin to war. You do indeed sound like I described you precisely because of the words you're using. |
|
|
|
Do they have the right to fail themselves? Is that what you're asking? Why don't you ask yourself that question and provide the answer?
If the metric of "fail themselves" is disagreement with you, then yes, they have the right to disagree with you, and "fail themselves". And where does that leave them, in the end? Free? Civilized behavior does not arise magically. It arrives through sharing of knowledge and cooperation. There are better examples in this world. Or at least ideas which can be merged.
You do not seek to know them or cooperate with them, you seek to bend them to your will, and to tell them how to be. Yes, you could set a better example of civilisation. Your current example reeks of supercilious condemnation and dictatorial imperialism. How tiring. Are you sixteen, and carrying the torch of rebellion because you want a cause as bad as you want to lose your virginity? That's how you sound, honestly. You have no interest in an improved society. You just want to cry out how wronged you feel, as you bask in amenities realized by your government while others have less. And yet you deny what could be, for you probably crave a fight, fantasizing about taking up arms with your fellow rebels, until half your face is blown off. |
|
|
|
Do they have the right to fail themselves? Is that what you're asking? Why don't you ask yourself that question and provide the answer?
If the metric of "fail themselves" is disagreement with you, then yes, they have the right to disagree with you, and "fail themselves". And where does that leave them, in the end? Civilized behavior does not arise magically. It arrives through sharing of knowledge and cooperation. There are better examples in this world. Or at least ideas which can be merged. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
