Guest Other-in-law Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 As for the fear of going to Gitmo, that is already starting. There was a 16 year old grabbed and taken away to the magical land of waterboarding back in February. Here's the link.Just read the article and have no idea where you're getting that the kid is being waterboarded at Guantanamo from it. Neither word occurs even once in the article. Not defending the Patriot Act or anything, but it would help if you didn't just make shit up.Now, I know that you are going to ignore 99% of what I just said and go off with some ridiculous comment about how gun ownership did not prevent thisHow is it that a point that you already conceded a few posts back is now "ridiculous"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_BlauerDragon Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Just read the article and have no idea where you're getting that the kid is being waterboarded at Guantanamo from it. Neither word occurs even once in the article. Not defending the Patriot Act or anything, but it would help if you didn't just make shit up.How is it that a point that you already conceded a few posts back is now "ridiculous"?Sorry, I did not mean to directly infer that this kid had been waterboarded in Gitmo. I just meant to point out that the Patriot Act is actively being used to illegally abduct American citizens and deny them their rights.As for the point that I conceded, it is ridiculous because it is not relevant. Pointing and saying "Ooh you're precious guns didn't save you, did they!" is not constructive, and is horribly off topic. In my view that is ignoring the statement and thumbing your nose at the validity of the position, and it's insulting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Other-in-law Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 As for the point that I conceded, it is ridiculous because it is not relevant. Pointing and saying "Ooh you're precious guns didn't save you, did they!" is not constructive, and is horribly off topic. In my view that is ignoring the statement and thumbing your nose at the validity of the position, and it's insulting.How is it off topic? If people are discussing the supposed value of exorcisms or voodoo dances, and someone claims that they cure cancer, pointing out that 'No, they really don't cure cancer at all' is very much on topic.Sometimes the application of Occam's razor is constructive in discarding flawed considerations...which gun rights as a cure for tyranny very arguably is. Winnowing out the chaff is itself constructive. If you want to argue self-defense against criminals , fine. But you can't just dismiss objections to the point you're trying to make as off topic.Sorry, I did not mean to directly infer that this kid had been waterboarded in Gitmo.If you didn't mean to draw the inference, then you sure as hell shouldn't have flat out stated it as fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Blauer, if you're so concerned with people showing you respect on these forums, you may want to try not posting flagrantly stupid bullshit that you later have to come back and explain, "Oh, I didn't actually mean what I said..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 So what is the point of gun ownreship if it won't prevent these things from happening? I thought that WAS the point.And all these things are also strongly hypothetical, i.e. it's all theories about what could maybe possibly happen in an alternate universe, but has an extremely small probability of happening here. It seems like something that should automatically get a very low priority, compared to everyday occurrances like health care, saving for a pension, getting rid of debt, job security, environmental concerns, etc.Why is it that something very unlikely gets a higher priority instead?Given that it's a lower priority, how could we possibly justify spending any resources on enacting a ban on guns?Those are resources that should be used for higher priority concerns, don't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrostar Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Clearly we shouldn't spend resources on keeping criminals locked up in that case either. It's not terribly cost-effective (or really effective at anything, for that matter). Certainly we shouldn't even consider spending resources enacting bans on gay marriage, abortion, or anything else that could conceivably have an economic positive effect on society, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mord Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Blauer Dragon,but if his family would have at least they could have died free.I guess this is where we part company, because I don't see where dying with a gun in your hands and killing people makes you any more free -- or otherwise any better off -- than if you'd none and had died peacefully in your sleep.Surely freedom is pretty useless if you aren't actually around to enjoy it? If that freedom is so useless, then what purpose did the gun serve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_BlauerDragon Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Surely freedom is pretty useless if you aren't actually around to enjoy it? If that freedom is so useless, then what purpose did the gun serve?You're right. That is where we part company. I never see freedom as useless. I believe whole heartedly in the words "Give me liberty, or give me death." The way that I view it, freedom is never useless... but life is useless without freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna Stark Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Very unlikely? Hmm... Go spend some time watching the history channel and then get back to me on how unlikely it is. or, if it is too much for you to spend that much time, try reading the wikipedia articles that pop up under "Japanese Americans World War II" (or just read "World War II"). That would be a good place to get started anyway. As for the fear of going to Gitmo, that is already starting. There was a 16 year old grabbed and taken away to the magical land of waterboarding back in February. Here's the link.Now, I know that you are going to ignore 99% of what I just said and go off with some ridiculous comment about how gun ownership did not prevent this, or make a snide remark about conspiracy theorist nut-jobs, but I do urge you to read the link. Gun ownership might not have prevented this, but if his family would have brandished arms and defended themselves at least they could have died free.I'm confused. How would a 100% gun ownership rate among Japanese Americans have prevented....well, I don't know, what would this have prevented? What should they have done?As for the 16 year old, how would guns have saved him? Should he have shot the police, military or whom? Himself? His family? How would that have helped him?You're right. That is where we part company. I never see freedom as useless. I believe whole heartedly in the words "Give me liberty, or give me death." The way that I view it, freedom is never useless... but life is useless without freedom.This is a very interesting view. Why, would you say, don't people who live in countries ruled by a dictator commit suicide if freedom > life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mord Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Blauer Dragon,You're right. That is where we part company. I never see freedom as useless. I believe whole heartedly in the words "Give me liberty, or give me death." The way that I view it, freedom is never useless... but life is useless without freedom.Eh. I'm unimpressed by a free corpse. At that point, you're free to do what exactly? Free to putrefy? Free to be eaten by pests and bacteria? Free to lie very still under a mound of earth? Woot! Sign me up for that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 In a sense, freedom requires the right to life. Without life you have no freedom whatsoever. Which is probably why the formula begins there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 They'd rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Re: BlauerFreedom is not defined by being able to shoot other people. The Japanese Americans who were unfairly sent to the internment camp became no less free for not having guns in their hands. The only difference guns would have made is the increased likelihood of a shoot-out between the federal agents sent to escort them and the Japanese Americans. So let's say they opened fire at the agents - does that mean that they are now more free? What if they just chained themselves to their doors, and use passive resistance and civil disobedience? Are they less free, then? Freedom is defined in part by our resistance to having it taken away, and that can be done with, or without, a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 and if the Japanese Americans did mount an armed resistance to being put in the internment camps the only thing that would change is that it would confirm in the minds of many people that they absolutely deserved to go there. Because no one who wasn't guilty would resist, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turinturambar Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I'm confused. How would a 100% gun ownership rate among Japanese Americans have prevented....well, I don't know, what would this have prevented? What should they have done?As for the 16 year old, how would guns have saved him? Should he have shot the police, military or whom? Himself? His family? How would that have helped him?This is a very interesting view. Why, would you say, don't people who live in countries ruled by a dictator commit suicide if freedom > life?I think Blauer's making the wrong argument here. It's not that gun ownership could have saved that 16 year old boy, because it couldn't. The argument should be, "this is what happens when government takes away rights in the guise of 'keeping us safe'".And to Aemon, Sorry It's taken me a while to get back. The last 3 days have been insanely busy. Anyways, you and I are likely to never agree on healthcare completely. As I've said before, I think there are trade-offs and there are pros and cons to each system. I think there are some very beneficial things to privatized healthcare, as far as "quality" goes, but you and others are right in that the quantity and/or equality measures can be a huge drawback, and I do think things need to be changed up a bit. FWIW, if there's any type of universal healthcare out there that I like, I'd definitely have to say I do like the way France does things, and Canada does have a very good model. I never meant to disrespect Canadian medicine if you ever took it that way. I don't think UHC is practical everywhere and I don't think private healthcare is practical everywhere either, there are so many factors that go into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mord Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 turinturambar,I think Blauer's making the wrong argument here. It's not that gun ownership could have saved that 16 year old boy, because it couldn't. The argument should be, "this is what happens when government takes away rights in the guise of 'keeping us safe'".How is that not the same argument that Blauer made? If the sixteen year old died because the government took gun rights away, then doesn't it follow that if they hadn't taken the guns away, then gun ownership would have saved him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turinturambar Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 turinturambar,How is that not the same argument that Blauer made? If the sixteen year old died because the government took gun rights away, then doesn't it follow that if they hadn't taken the guns away, then gun ownership would have saved him?I don't think you understood my meaning. I wasn't talking about gun rights. I was talking about the situation that led to the kid being taken in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_BlauerDragon Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 This is a very interesting view. Why, would you say, don't people who live in countries ruled by a dictator commit suicide if freedom > life?First, you are assuming that all dictators are going to deprive their subjects of freedom. I'd say that is a fair enough assumption. Operating under that assumption, one can only conclude that those who live beneath a dictator are doing so willingly out of a condition of overwhelming cowardice. Suicide is never a viable option, it's a coward's last resort. Since they are obviously quite comfortable in their cowardice, perhaps they do not see the need for a last resort. I guess that if the dog likes being beaten, it's not likely to bite you when you beat it. The fact that they do not fight to overthrow their dictator, that they are not willing to lay down their lives in order to secure their essential liberties is (to me) only an argument that their lives have no meaning, and no value. They might as well be dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felice Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 There was a 16 year old grabbed and taken away to the magical land of waterboarding back in February. Gun ownership might not have prevented this, but if his family would have brandished arms and defended themselves at least they could have died free.Yes, I'm sure the kid would be much happier if he had being shipped off to an orphanage to look forward to instead of merely going back home to his family once he's released. Not that I approve of the FBI's actions, but guns really, really wouldn't have helped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felice Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 In order to control costs access to care must have some limitations. If everyone can take their child to their GP every week then you get uncontrolled expenses.Why on Earth would anyone take their child to their GP every week? Surely they'd have better things to do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.