Bitcoin Forum
September 29, 2016, 08:23:14 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.0 (New!) [Torrent]. Make sure you verify it.
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 ... 230 »
281  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: June 24, 2015, 01:12:11 AM
Except, rereading, it seems to make more sense to think of metalanguage in computing terms. We can think of a statement as a series of instructions for running a program. Rather than a noun, the metalanguage would be an action: a reasoning process by which we somehow evaluate statements. Except that that still doesn't explain what we do when we run them. Or how we somehow seem able to overcome the limitations of computers.

1) I really don't understand the "let's not shoot the messenger comment."  I'm guessing it's non-essential, though I don't know who I shot lol.

2)  I agree that we can make sensical and non-sensical statements with plain English, and that the non-sensical statements do not render English inoperable or useless.  The syntax and rules of operation for English determine what is sensical and what isn't.  Statements are relayed back to the syntax and processed according thereto to determine if it is meaningful in a way consistent with it.  Thus, at the syntactic level there is indeed a "reasoning" process by which statements are evaluated, but the syntax itself is structural, i.e. it imposes constraints upon what can be considered meaningful.

How would you determine correctness in the first place? Maybe the syntax -- or language rules -- that you speak of are created experimentally?


One model of reality that I'm thinking about goes like this:
There's a Turing machine and a Programmer.
The Turing machine doesn't know very much about rules or syntax. It just gets instructions from somewhere, which it runs automatically. There's no syntax-checking or filtering at that level. The machine occasionally gets stuck because of the Halting Problem, so this requires intervention from the Programmer to reset it. The Programmer might also have additional powers, such as being able to replicate itself, perhaps conjuring a higher self into existence as a workaround if it gets stuck resetting the machine in an infinite loop. Alternatively, it creates and delegates a lower self, but I guess that would be pretty similar.

The 'instructions' could be message data that we get from our senses in serialised form, presumably coming from another programmer entity, whom we don't have direct access to, but only via the message tape.

Rapid multiplication of the programmer selves could then pave the way for creating complex mental structures, out of something that had absolutely minimalistic rules. Far from being a nuisance, the undecidable parts of the software are what allow both sides (message and the messenger) to exist.

Quote
4)  If you run software with code that does not conform to the syntax of its programming language, it will be evaluated as an invalid input. If valid, how those statements are expressed is a product of both their relation to their governing syntax, and also in relation to other object-level statements governed by the same syntax that may affect them (e.g. if-then or "conditional" statements).  I'm not sure if I fully responded to what you were saying, here.  I'm at lunch on an iPhone.

Edit: Linking this to subjectivity and objectivity, consider a governing syntax of Reality in total as it relates to its internal components.  As we perceive real content and subsequently process and model that content, we can either model that content in a way that is consistent with the syntax of Reality in total, or in a way that is inconsistent.  Because the structural syntax of Reality in total necessarily distributes to all of its content, if our model is consistent, then it is objectively valid, else we have an inconsistent, invalid model that provides us with no objective value.  In this way, we can consider this process in terms of a fundamental utility function, where utility is defined upon consistency and congruency with Universal syntax.  

When a computer checks a piece of software for syntax errors before compiling or running it, the processor is running software the entire time. What we call syntax would therefore be some complex pattern of learned behaviour.


When you suggest that perhaps "the syntax -- or language rules -- that I speak of are created experimentally," you have to remember that, given this possibility, there must still be an unconditional and unchanging structure at play, i.e. what defines a rule.

In his theory, Langan describes a "one-to-many" mapping of real/Universal syntax, which would allow for the simultaneous possibility of various conditional syntactic systems at the "many" level while maintaining an unchanging syntax archetype at the "one" level.  The general structure of syntax or 'rule' still applies, but how this is expressed differs within the mapping.  

When you talk about the Programmer creating a 'higher self,' basically you're talking about omnipotence.  To create a 'higher self' would imply the creation of a self which is totally unbound by the syntax of the 'lower self,' but this is paradoxical to the fact that the 'lower self' must be unbound by the syntax of the 'higher self' in order to create it.  If the Programmer can actually do this, then he was omnipotent all along, and any 'higher self' is simply one of a many diversified essence of the 'omnipotent self' [archetype].  
282  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 23, 2015, 07:50:54 PM

Again, I propose the challenge: Name one good reason why armymen or SWAT team members should automatically be granted more trust with a gun than your neighbors.


Errrrrrrrr

Training and stuff? Having an actual need for them?

If you don't think that defending one's self constitutes a need, then by extension one shouldn't need police, armymen, or SWAT teams to defend one's self, either.  I doubt you would be in favor of that.

Training is a fair point (compared to areas where someone can lawfully obtain a gun without training) but can arguably be offset by the context in which they are trained.  The nature of the jobs of military and police is one where violence is anticipated.  This is why you see, for example, police officers approach a routine traffic stop with their hands on their holsters.  The psychological expectation of violence contributes to a greater likelihood that they will be more "trigger-happy" (didn't mean that euphemistically, but for lack of a better term) and make a careless mistake themselves.  

We both have surely heard of all the deaths of unarmed citizens by police and otherwise.  Highlighting this point, do you think that the recent incident where an unarmed man flagged down police was shot and killed would have ended the same way if the man had flagged down a civilian?  Nope.  Furthermore, society often approves the use of deadly force by police in situations where a criminal has a knife, bat, or other handheld weapon.  Why?  Because the police officer was defending himself.  By extension of that logic, it should be approved that any man can defend himself against similar threats with a gun.

Edit: On 2nd thought, even "training" isn't a very good reason at all.  The reason is that the only significantly important training is that which is relevant after a threat has been identified.  Mental illness not withstanding, basically any idiot will have a good idea when a significant threat exists such that the use of a gun becomes justifiable.  Unless you have some paranoia yourself, you shouldn't have much worry about your gun-toting neighbors just lighting up the neighborhood willy-nilly.  The question is instead whether you can trust them with a gun after they have identified a legitimate threat to the safety of their selves or someone else.  In a home invasion, this won't be much of any concern because the threat is isolated to that environment.  And if everyone of sane mind has a gun, the chances decreases that a legitimate threat will exist in a public space (because a criminal knows he has no chance unless he's already committed himself to going out with guns blazing).  People don't take guns and start shooting randomly while spinning in circles.
283  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 23, 2015, 06:41:25 PM
Guns should be used only by the army and SWAT. I think that such restriction would make life much easier for all.

In america it's seen as a hobby. You can see videos of people testing out guns and shoting out watermelons outdoors in some places that sometimes look like their backyard. It's pretty insane to anyone not living on there. I mean you can walk in on that area without knowing someone is shoting shit up and get shoot... pretty crazy.

Most terrorist have this "hobby" too. Americans will have to let that go. For most cases a pepper spray is just enough.

Again, I propose the challenge: Name one good reason why armymen or SWAT team members should automatically be granted more trust with a gun than your neighbors.
284  Economy / Auctions / Re: ►►► 2013 Lealana Silver Error coin MS66 - 3 DAY AUCTION on: June 23, 2015, 02:41:52 AM
How many batches were there with the error?

It's says a 1000 on the certificate.  Cool

One batch of 1000.   Wink

Yeah, but Smoothie made it, so he probably made an error on that, too.

Zing! Cheesy   J/k  I love my set.  Free bump for the auction!
285  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 22, 2015, 05:21:08 PM
I am a European.  I cannot understand why Americans want to have so many people owning guns.

The biggest massacre involving guns happened in Europe. It occurred in a country, which is having one of the toughest gun control laws (Norway) in the world. A lunatic called Anders Behring Breivik was single-handedly able to mow down a total of 77 people, and the policemen present at the scene could not do anything, as they were not armed.
Ok the biggest might have been in Europe, but the frequency and total number killed is much higher in the US than all of Europe combined.

It wasn't that the police present couldn't do anything, he had set off a bomb in the capital city to throw the police off, then he attacked the children on an island that couldn't be quickly reached.
The guy was/is a lunatic and it is dreadful that he managed to get a weapon.  I would prefer that he wasn't able to get a gun, instead of giving lots of people guns to shoot each other in this kind of case (I doubt it would have made a difference as it was a Political Youth camp he attacked, probably not somewhere where people would be armed anyway)

I suppose guns should be banned from everywhere. No guns, extremely less killing, and everybody will leave in peace then. Let only the lawmen, armymen have the guns.

Can you think of a good reason why "lawmen" and "armymen" should automatically be granted the trust to carry weapons while your neighbors should not?  Keep in mind that nationalism is a small step away from racism (referring to armymen), and that lawmen have direct influence upon that which they stand to personally gain.

I can't think of one.  And why do so many people seem to think that banning guns will prohibit criminals from violating the ban in the same ways they already dodge the ban on criminal behaviors?  
286  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Los Angeles police shoot unarmed man in head; and then handcuff him! on: June 22, 2015, 01:42:08 PM
The USA has become one of the most wretched police states in the history of the world. Can't imagine how scary it must be to live their seeing their police force maim and kill innocents indiscriminately.

Honestly, when you turn off the news, it's not so bad. If I hadn't watched any news in the past two decades, the only noticeable differences in daily life would probably be whittled down to some inflated gas and food prices, tightened airport security, better technology, and a lot of silly music and clothing outfits.  9/11 what?
287  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 22, 2015, 03:44:30 AM
Gun control will not stop violence because a violent person doesn’t need a gun to be violent,not only gun there are so much other stuff that support the violence
Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy biting my knuckles Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
you silly human the question is about gun control not violence stupid
there will always be violence dumb ass i would rather someone attack me with a knife or a stick or hit me with a punch or a kick than blast my head off with a gun

KEEP YOUR GUNS THEN AND WATCH YOUR COUNTRY FALL APART Cry Cry Cry Cry Cry
21ST CENTURY Cool not 1821 cowboys and indians.. john wayne and all the like
do u know what i was going to write more but just thought whats the point your like religious people you will never change your mind unless you your self been affected by guns
all i will say is be safe and try not get trigger happy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

So if guns are banned, and you're a law abiding citizen and therefore don't break the a law and get one, what are you going to do if a criminal with a gun attacks you?
same as every other country with gun laws phone the police Undecided Undecided Undecided
and if my law was in place he or she will be getting 25 years if caught and will do every day of them 25 years and that will send a clear message out carry guns get 25 years
see what is happening in my area 13 year old kids getting hold of guns well i say guns some look like they found them in the grandad shed from the 2nd worldwar.. and old shot guns that look like the shot guns have wood worm  Cheesy Cheesy there that old
So thank god they cannot get hold of nice new guns and buy them like lolly pops because our kids would shoot each other like no tomorrow
we have about 10 shooting a month in our city
 but i say about 3 to 4 people get killed with a gun a year some years 1 person gets killed and about 25 people get injured because they shoot your legs so if there caught they get done for a lesser crime not murder
but the thing is these young kids 13 to 25 get no real jail time
if a 13 old murders he still got his whole life ahead of him 15 years he only be 28 when he get out of jail.. if he caught with a gun in public he get 2 years in youth offenders now you give this kid a status i am a bad ass so don,t mess with me or i shoot you no matter who you are a 15 year old cheeky little brat
and guns are banned  here So more jail time needed plus if he or she murders a human with a gun then they will never be released from jail not ever


Criminal:  (Breaks through your front door).  Alright motherf*cker, here's the deal.  I'm taking your money, I'm raping your wife, and I'm blowing your heads off.

You:  Wait wait wait.  Time-out.  I'm calling the police.  You're in big trouble, mister.

Criminal:  *Blows your head off.*

Gee, your plan sounded so great on paper.
point 1 most people rob your money very rare someone rape your wife you would be caught in a flash DNA
point 2 if he did rape my wife she would shag him to death thus saving the both of us Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
see because you have a gun more likley be a shoot out resulting in a death instead just handing over your money then phone police
see no one deserves to die for stealing or house robbery even tho i really hate house thieves ..hmmm may be cut 2 fingers off as a punishment or chop half a foot off there foot Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy i am only joking
The law lords need to sit down and say right its the 21st century lets see how we can make these new laws better to keep our citizens safer
plus most of all we need to give our young kids jobs so they have a life instead stuck on the streets to become a street rat


Aside from the weird fact that you seem to think that someone getting caught and thrown in jail offsets your wife being raped (wtf?), I think you forgot the part where he blows your heads off, anyway.

But hey, good thing he got those 25 years afterward, right? 
288  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 22, 2015, 02:31:36 AM
Gun control will not stop violence because a violent person doesn’t need a gun to be violent,not only gun there are so much other stuff that support the violence
Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy biting my knuckles Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
you silly human the question is about gun control not violence stupid
there will always be violence dumb ass i would rather someone attack me with a knife or a stick or hit me with a punch or a kick than blast my head off with a gun

KEEP YOUR GUNS THEN AND WATCH YOUR COUNTRY FALL APART Cry Cry Cry Cry Cry
21ST CENTURY Cool not 1821 cowboys and indians.. john wayne and all the like
do u know what i was going to write more but just thought whats the point your like religious people you will never change your mind unless you your self been affected by guns
all i will say is be safe and try not get trigger happy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

So if guns are banned, and you're a law abiding citizen and therefore don't break the a law and get one, what are you going to do if a criminal with a gun attacks you?
same as every other country with gun laws phone the police Undecided Undecided Undecided
and if my law was in place he or she will be getting 25 years if caught and will do every day of them 25 years and that will send a clear message out carry guns get 25 years
see what is happening in my area 13 year old kids getting hold of guns well i say guns some look like they found them in the grandad shed from the 2nd worldwar.. and old shot guns that look like the shot guns have wood worm  Cheesy Cheesy there that old
So thank god they cannot get hold of nice new guns and buy them like lolly pops because our kids would shoot each other like no tomorrow
we have about 10 shooting a month in our city
 but i say about 3 to 4 people get killed with a gun a year some years 1 person gets killed and about 25 people get injured because they shoot your legs so if there caught they get done for a lesser crime not murder
but the thing is these young kids 13 to 25 get no real jail time
if a 13 old murders he still got his whole life ahead of him 15 years he only be 28 when he get out of jail.. if he caught with a gun in public he get 2 years in youth offenders now you give this kid a status i am a bad ass so don,t mess with me or i shoot you no matter who you are a 15 year old cheeky little brat
and guns are banned  here So more jail time needed plus if he or she murders a human with a gun then they will never be released from jail not ever


Criminal:  (Breaks through your front door).  Alright motherf*cker, here's the deal.  I'm taking your money, I'm raping your wife, and I'm blowing your heads off.

You:  Wait wait wait.  Time-out.  I'm calling the police.  You're in big trouble, mister.

Criminal:  *Blows your head off.*

Gee, your plan sounded so great on paper.
289  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 22, 2015, 01:05:42 AM
Gun control will not stop violence because a violent person doesn’t need a gun to be violent,not only gun there are so much other stuff that support the violence
Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy biting my knuckles Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
you silly human the question is about gun control not violence stupid
there will always be violence dumb ass i would rather someone attack me with a knife or a stick or hit me with a punch or a kick than blast my head off with a gun

KEEP YOUR GUNS THEN AND WATCH YOUR COUNTRY FALL APART Cry Cry Cry Cry Cry
21ST CENTURY Cool not 1821 cowboys and indians.. john wayne and all the like
do u know what i was going to write more but just thought whats the point your like religious people you will never change your mind unless you your self been affected by guns
all i will say is be safe and try not get trigger happy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

So if guns are banned, and you're a law abiding citizen and therefore don't break the a law and get one, what are you going to do if a criminal with a gun attacks you?
290  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Los Angeles police shoot unarmed man in head; and then handcuff him! on: June 21, 2015, 09:50:30 PM
Aren't these police offers supposed to take IQ tests? Aren't these tests design to help analyze if a person is mentally qualified to become a cop and be accompanied with a gun and a badge? physical fitness and willingness to serve is all good but if your understanding and maturity is of a 7 year old, BEING A POLICE MAN IS NOT THE FUCKING WAY TO GO!

HAHAHA, PREACH! My feelings described perfectly over here! Aren't these people selected, tested, trained, made eligible for the the best services before handing them a badge and a gun? Does the profession kill brain cells?

Read my post above.  Some police agencies have apparently implemented a policy that you are barred from being a police officer if your IQ is too high.  The decision was upheld in a Federal lawsuit.
291  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 21, 2015, 09:46:36 PM
the joint
Legendary
*
you own a gun you must do  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
I think the only way your going to learn is when someone shoots you your family or friend
so be careful trigger happy DICK
 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
this is you so you think Wink Wink
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQoxsMTkVt4

man buys his kid a riffle to go hunting kid trips over
 the butt of the riffle hits the floor blows kids head off now that guy now wishes he had never introduced his son to guns
 and he weeps everyday because he misses him so much sad sad
and i bet if his kid was still alive today he be saying keep the gun law don,t ban it
he not saying it now tho he saying ban them  Wink Wink
 ONLY DICK SHITBAGS WANT GUNS
USE YOUR FIST YOU SHITHOUSE

Well, that escalated quickly  Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes

Quote
I think the only way your going to learn is when someone shoots you your family or friend
so be careful trigger happy DICK...

...ONLY DICK SHITBAGS WANT GUNS
USE YOUR FIST YOU SHITHOUSE

Oh, you angel.
292  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Los Angeles police shoot unarmed man in head; and then handcuff him! on: June 21, 2015, 04:42:41 PM
Aren't these police offers supposed to take IQ tests? Aren't these tests design to help analyze if a person is mentally qualified to become a cop and be accompanied with a gun and a badge? physical fitness and willingness to serve is all good but if your understanding and maturity is of a 7 year old, BEING A POLICE MAN IS NOT THE FUCKING WAY TO GO!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

Quote
A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.
293  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 21, 2015, 04:28:50 PM
Let's be honest, some people shouldn't have the right to own a gun.
For example, If you're a violent criminal, you shouldn't have a gun, mentally unstable or deranged, no guns.
2 amendment is a right, however with rights come responsibilities.
so you do agree people should have no guns Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy you have slipped up my friend

MENTALLY UNSTABLE OR DERANGED you say Wink your words not mine Grin

point 1 any human at any stage in his or her life can become mentally unstable or deranged
for loads of reasons
 getting bullied
 loosing a loved 1
getting jilted at the alter
taking drugs
loosing a job
I could go on for ever many many reasons a human can become mentally ill or deranged
 not all are born mentally ill
 life can trigger mental illness and make you become deranged
and it can happen to anybody
So then NO human should have a GUN because any person can turn mental  Wink Wink Wink Wink
So now what you got to say YOU ARE STUMPED  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Now you see why guns should be banned
plus how many you so called responsible gun owners have left there gun out and a 3 year old kid as blasted is little sister or brother
some have hid there guns but you know kids they root around the house when parents are not watching
the young child finds his dads gun looks down the barrel and blow there own heads off
and yes its happened  many times
NO GUNS NO ONE GETS SHOT
young kid gets bullied in school goes in dads draw gets his gun walks in school and shoots every 1
NO GUNS NO ONE GETS SHOT
man walks in house goes in the bed room and wife having sex with another man pulls his gun and shoots them both yes its happened many times and this guy might of been told by your wife she was single
NO GUNS NO ONE GETS SHOT
plus higher jail time if caught carrying a gun BAN THEM
I REST MY CASE Wink Wink Wink Wink
av a nice day all


 

I'd much rather take my chances with a few gun-toting mentally deranged people than prohibiting my ability to defend myself, or prohibiting the millions of other responsible, sane folk who also want to retain the ability to defend themselves.  There is almost no difference between a police officer -- a person, like any other -- having a gun, and the average Joe having a gun.  Cops keep crime rates down because they have the means of deterring criminals.  Similarly, crime rates are deterred when higher numbers of civilians have guns.  This is backed statistically when controlling for other variables.

By the way, you really should learn how to write properly.  I can't take you or your views seriously, and that's because I'm assuming your chaotic, unstructured post is a reflection of a chaotic, unstructured mind.
294  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 20, 2015, 04:29:23 PM
I think the issue of gun control is so often mischaracterized because the issue of government control casts a veil of ignorance over almost everyone's eyes.  The extent to which guns can be controlled is predominantly influenced by how much control can be exercised by government at the Federal and state levels.  The larger governments get, the more tightly regulation generally controls all other facets of life, including things such as commerce, education, criminal justice, mental and medical health treatment, and even social relationships.  

On one hand, progressively granting government more control propels the myth that people would somehow be unable to work together harmoniously without such structure.  On the other hand, granting such control would make catastrophe all but certain if it were suddenly removed (i.e. we've gotten ourselves in too deep to easily pull ourselves out).  The situation is far more complex than people make it out to be, and you'll never reach a viable solution to the gun issue by simply looking at gun statistics, or even by relating those statistics to other things over which the government has been granted authoritarian control.
295  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 20, 2015, 02:23:39 PM
Oh give me a break.  You just took a detour into total irrelevancy.  Tanks?  Really?
I'll give you the same number of breaks the national guard will give you if you ever challenge government authority when it comes to your "right" to use your guns: ZERO.

Relevancy-->
And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.

we shouldn't even bother resisting or protecting ourselves from anyone!
You should always seek to protect yourself and your home from killers. A gun in the home is 22 (twenty-two!) times more likely to be used in a suicide, homocide, or accident than for self-defense.



As I stated in the other thread, I see where this is going.  You're a black-and-white thinker, and little more than a parrot of buzz-word rhetoric.  I don't have the time to educate you about how to stay within the context of an argument instead of changing it willy-nilly whenever you have an idea, nor do I have time to explain to you the difference between things like correlation and causation, the definition of "mediating variable," "false dichotomy," or otherwise.  I'll retain my freedom to both carry a gun and think for myself, thanks.
296  Other / Politics & Society / Re: South Carolina church shooting: Nine die in Charleston 'hate crime' on: June 20, 2015, 02:17:36 PM
I'd be interested to know what you think about issue, in your own words, and without framing the issue in an infantile false dichotomy.
What, did you really think I linked material that opposes my own opinion on the matter? Not too fuckin' bright bro.

Why would I type something which has already been typed? This isn't the middle ages, we're not transcribing ancient texts for preservation here guys. This is the internet.

Still, I'll humor you as a show of good faith. Let's treat guns and cars the same!

-Gun licenses that prove competency
-Gun registration
-Mandatory gun insurance
-Education for misdemeanor offenses
-Suspension of gun license for multiple offenses
-Severe jail time for weapons used while under the influence of alcohol (or other drugs)




Ahh, I see where this is going.  I'm not responding to any more of your posts on this issue.
297  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 20, 2015, 02:11:48 PM
And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.
Yeah, why don't you ask the Texas Waco cultists how well that attitude holds up when push comes to shove. OH WAIT, you can't because they burned to death.



All your guns aren't going to even put a scratch on one of these.

Oh give me a break.  You just took a detour into total irrelevancy.  Tanks?  Really?
298  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 20, 2015, 01:55:11 PM
”Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” -- Ben Franklin
Actually, Franklin never said that.

If you, as a person, give up your freedoms (like the right to carry a gun)
You have no rights. You have privileges.

Fair enough.  I had actually thought it was Jefferson from memory, but to double check I just Googled the quote, and it popped up as Franklin.

Still, who said it, or if nobody said it, changes nothing.

And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.
299  Other / Politics & Society / Re: South Carolina church shooting: Nine die in Charleston 'hate crime' on: June 20, 2015, 01:53:29 PM
And what is stopping that same individual from just plowing that car into a bunch of people?




I've seen your posts in the gun control thread, too.  Nice to know you've thought this one out for yourself   Roll Eyes

I'd be interested to know what you think about issue, in your own words, and without framing the issue in an infantile false dichotomy.
300  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: June 20, 2015, 01:43:43 PM
 ”Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” -- Ben Franklin

If you, as a person, give up your freedoms (like the right to carry a gun) and hand them over to someone else in exchange for protection, you are acknowledging a few things:

1) You acknowledge that someone(s) is more capable of protecting you than yourself.

2) You acknowledge that that you are content with being at the mercy of the decisions of those to whom you have conceded your freedoms.

3) You acknowledge that the extent to which you continue to have liberties is determined by those to whom you gave up your others.

 
So, here's the question of the day:  If you believe you are not best suited to handle the security of yourself, then how can you conclude that sacrificing liberties for security was the best idea to begin with?
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 ... 230 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!