Not to mention the facile talk about "the left". — Sapientia
My statements aren't inconsistent particularly seeing as I clarified the first one in the Shout box in a reply to Sapientia. But even if there were an inconsistency, your conclusion makes no sense. You think you've found an inconsistency, you admit that you know of no reason that I would lie.Your conclusion: I'm lying. As I said, you're an odd one. — Baden
I like that you presume I'm a leftist and I have tactics. It's kind of like being in a movie or something. — Baden
but I think it would be damned hard for the American military to take over if they wanted to. — Sir2u
When you're unable to discuss substance, all that's left is to invoke ideological spectres to cover over argumentative inability. It's generally a good sign. — StreetlightX
Based on the fact the the American want to keep this from happening to them and that the English have already let it happen, maybe yes. — Sir2u
Projection? You literally can't get through more than a couple of posts without invoking about the boogyman that is 'the left'. Not only do you seem to mistake fantasy for reality but also reality for fantasy. — StreetlightX
But in any case, that was hundreds of years ago. — Sapientia
And, moreover, why should what the Americans want take precedence over what's in their best interest? — Sapientia
I'd be strongly against the reintroduction of barbaric forms of punishment, such as hanging, beheading, and being burnt at the stake, irrespective of whether or not that's what my fellow Englishmen wanted. — Sapientia
On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in repealing the constitutional right to bear arms, as lately - largely in light of the autocratic tendencies of President Trump - I have had largely negative attitude towards strengthening the federal government. — Brian
The thought that owning a weapon would be any kind of defense against the US Department of Defense, if it came to that, is surely a ridiculous fantasy. — Wayfarer
on the other hand, if arms really were to be organised and stored in the service of a 'well-organised militia', in a proper armoury, subject to checks, controls and balances, then you might have a workable model. — Wayfarer
The thought that owning a weapon would be any kind of defense against the US Department of Defense, if it came to that, is surely a ridiculous fantasy. — Wayfarer
Is that the best that you can come up with? Disappointing. Perhaps you should think it through a bit more. — Sapientia
On the other hand, if arms really were to be organised and stored in the service of a 'well-organised militia', in a proper armoury, subject to checks, controls and balances, then you might have a workable model.
— Wayfarer
And who would you say should have the job of organizing it? — Sir2u
Nice dodge. — Thorongil
Why do you assume that it's the second amendment that causes gun deaths? Take a look here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.085b6df2f17f — Thorongil
Quite. But I've been responding to several people in this thread, all of whom disagree with me (and more than that, think that I'm an evil maniac) — Thorongil
The leftist mod brigade has tried very hard, sometimes with sarcasm and sometimes with apparent seriousness, to paint me as a gun-loving and toting nutjob. — Thorongil
Isn't it possible that like most people, I don't want to see needless loss of lives and would be happy to see any measures taken that would solve the problem? — Baden
The samsaric nature of this "debate" in a nutshell:
Person A: I don't think more gun control would have stopped the recent mass shooting. A person intent on mass murder can find a way.
Person B: So that must mean there's no point in regulating weapons or trying to stop these killers! You're an awful person!
The second person's allegation, repeated ad nauseam by Baden and others, is simply a non-sequitur. The first person is not saying that we should not try to prevent these attacks. Rather, 1) he is merely pointing out that no law or regulation would likely have prevented the Las Vegas attack nor prevent all mass casualty attacks in the future and 2) he may have different ideas than the second person about how to reduce their occurrence.
It's only the second person's side that turns an empirically derived observation and disagreement about policy into an opportunity to cast moral aspersions on his interlocutor. In reality, opposition to leftist gun control schemes is only evidence of disagreement, not of indifference to or, even more egregiously, support of mass murder. The first person's side often acknowledges that the other side is 1) genuinely repulsed by mass shootings, 2) wants them to stop, and 3) believes that their policy recommendations will solve the problem or at least greatly alleviate it. The second person's side takes disagreement with 3) to directly entail a lack of 1) and 2). Don't fall for this red herring, because its sole purpose is to guilt trip you into agreeing with 3), the evidence for which is up for rational debate.
Correction: "rightist evil maniac". ;) — Baden
Nope. It's your demonstrable paranoia and logical leaps that were objected too. I know you're not a gun lover but you do hate the left in a way that makes you sound irrational at times. — Baden
In the hours following a violent rampage in Las Vegas in which a lone attacker killed more than 50 individuals and seriously injured 400 others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Monday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Iowa resident Kyle Rimmels, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep these individuals from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past eight years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”
*Sigh* — Thorongil
not a serious attempt at insult. — Baden
By the way, I knew it wasn't an attempted insult. — Thorongil
The bitter sarcasm and hyperbolic reactions...[continues with bitterness and hyperbole] — Thorongil
Perhaps one reason why is because I keep being smugly accused of "demonstrable paranoia and logical leaps" by the left without evidence. Something to think about. — Thorongil
Who rules England? The government.
Who backs up the government? The military.
They don't need a coup because they already run the place...
...
Based on the fact the the American want to keep this from happening to them and that the English have already let it happen, maybe yes. — Sir2u
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.