DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Is this hypocrisy?
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 151 - 175 of 1154, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/03/2013 08:58:32 PM · #151
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:

Congrats... You've just proven that you either read in such a manner that you ignore the context, or you've proven that you're only interested in facts that support your conclusions...
One CDC study found that, in one year, more than 618,000 children ages 0-12 rode in vehicles without the use of a child safety seat or booster seat or a seat belt at least some of the time.

So tell us, O Master of Context, how many children rode in vehicles without car seats before they were required by law and the only requirement was common sense? It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Whether or not some children still go without car seats does not change the fact that the laws have made a dramatic difference. Same with restrictions on public smoking, motorcycle helmets, and a zillion other things even without 100% compliance.


Really? That's your argument? No refutation that you actually called < 16.5% "Dramatic"? Just a silly insult "O Master of Context" and a reassurance that 16.5% is indeed dramatic.

I find you wearing and weak - what really bothers and scares me about this is the fact that you're almost certainly significantly less dumb and ignorant than the average American.

I think it's important for you to remember that you're talking about restricting what are currently recognized as "rights" it really is an all or nothing argument. Not for you of course, because you don't care about guns, but for those who are on the other side of this, it most certainly is all or nothing - as once you've lost a right, you'll never gain it back.

So honestly? That was your response in full? Rather disappointing really, but I suppose I don't know why I expected anything different.

Shame - it would have been fun to hear you tell me how my rights aren't as valuable as your ability to pretend that you're safer because of the 10% reduction of the 0.0000001% chance that you'll find yourself in a "OMG an armed guy is shooting at me or my kids" scenario.

Message edited by author 2013-01-03 20:59:26.
01/03/2013 09:15:45 PM · #152
Originally posted by Cory:

I really do think it's sad that you'd be willing to trade my freedom for your ability to "feel" safe. (btw, the freedom is to bear arms - not the freedom to kill -

You actually QUOTED me to post that?
Originally posted by scalvert:

Which of my proposals would deny you the right to bear arms?


Originally posted by Cory:

You would seem to want to translate the miniscule percentage of a chance that you fear into a guarantee of loss for everyone. Your argument is effectively "for the greater good", I ask you, what is honestly the greater good? Safety and life for an incredibly small number of people, or freedom and liberty for a huge number of people.

The odds are far lower that we'd be a victim of an airline disaster than gun violence, yet we willingly accept airline safety regulations nevertheless. 9,000+ lives lost and 300,000+ guns stolen every year vs. less than 1,000 ACTUAL cases of gun used in defense of violent crime per year and NO rights or freedoms given up with the regulations proposed. I'd like to see you stand in front of the parents of 20 slain kindergarten children and whine about your lost right to an assault rifle or 50 round magazine and the all the terrible suffering you'd endure with some extra paperwork. Gun owners who value an imagined freedom over human life is reason enough to require restrictions. Not going to waste my time any further.
01/03/2013 09:34:05 PM · #153
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:

I really do think it's sad that you'd be willing to trade my freedom for your ability to "feel" safe. (btw, the freedom is to bear arms - not the freedom to kill -

You actually QUOTED me to post that?
Originally posted by scalvert:

Which of my proposals would deny you the right to bear arms?


Originally posted by Cory:

You would seem to want to translate the miniscule percentage of a chance that you fear into a guarantee of loss for everyone. Your argument is effectively "for the greater good", I ask you, what is honestly the greater good? Safety and life for an incredibly small number of people, or freedom and liberty for a huge number of people.

The odds are far lower that we'd be a victim of an airline disaster than gun violence, yet we willingly accept airline safety regulations nevertheless. 9,000+ lives lost and 300,000+ guns stolen every year vs. less than 1,000 ACTUAL cases of gun used in defense of violent crime per year and NO rights or freedoms given up with the regulations proposed. I'd like to see you stand in front of the parents of 20 slain kindergarten children and whine about your lost right to an assault rifle or 50 round magazine and the all the terrible suffering you'd endure with some extra paperwork. Gun owners who value an imagined freedom over human life is reason enough to require restrictions. Not going to waste my time any further.


Oh, if you think I wouldn't say this to them, then you're darn wrong. The only thing that would prevent me from doing so is the fact that it would simply serve no purpose other than to argue with a bunch of people who are emotionally raw. Strange that you'd really want to see that honestly.

As to which of your proposals? Anything that requires further regulation is, by definition, an erosion of rights. Did I miss you proposing something that wouldn't require further regulation? (Other than the moment that you and I agreed that enforcement is the failure point, both of current laws, and any new ones.)

As to valuing an imagined freedom over human life:

First, my freedom is only imaginary in your mind, it's quite real, and I find the fact that you already consider freedom to be imaginary says a hell of a lot about your worldview.
Second, many lives were spent for that freedom, the fact that you say it's imaginary shows how little you, not I, value life.
Third, I have shown, using the child safety seat (a successful program by every measure), that even the most uncontroversial and easy to enforce regulations have only made a difference of about 17%
Fourth, you cannot really argue that any level of legislation would have prevented this, and to argue otherwise is just madness, given that the shooter committed at least 41 crimes that day.

So, in effect, you accuse me of not valuing life because I think the trade is a piss poor idea that will certainly result in an erosion of rights, while it is far from certain to make a significant difference, and almost certainly never going to prevent the type of event you are seeking to prevent in the first place.

Now how the heck is that not unreasonable?
01/03/2013 09:43:57 PM · #154
Originally posted by scalvert:

Gun owners who value an imagined freedom over human life is reason enough to require restrictions.


Ah yes the human life equation. Please explain to me how is it you can defend murdering more children with your sane and rational VOTE than any insane person has ever done with a firearm. Please - lets discuss the "human life" question as it pertains to the hipocracy of the liberals who staunchly defend a woman's right to terminate a baby (by the millions) yet want to claim the preciousness of human life as an excuse to take away guns from law abiding citizens due to the misuse by an insane lunatic.

Human life has absolutely nothing to do with this (based on your support for the Pro choice platform). The issue is gun control and restricting access - period. You easily are willing to sacrifice the 1000 victims who per your own numbers use firearms defensively. All while murdering millions of babies. Please - pass on the human life drama. I do not believe you for one minute.
01/03/2013 10:57:47 PM · #155
Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Gun owners who value an imagined freedom over human life is reason enough to require restrictions.


Ah yes the human life equation.


...lets protect life at the fullest. Outlaw the pill I say. :O)

Ray
01/03/2013 10:58:35 PM · #156
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Gun owners who value an imagined freedom over human life is reason enough to require restrictions.


Ah yes the human life equation.


...lets protect life at the fullest. Outlaw the pill I say. :O)

Ray


'cause the planet totally needs more human!
01/03/2013 11:03:34 PM · #157
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Gun owners who value an imagined freedom over human life is reason enough to require restrictions.


Ah yes the human life equation.


...lets protect life at the fullest. Outlaw the pill I say. :O)

Ray


'cause the planet totally needs more human!


...as a matter of fact, I was reading an article just the other day that suggested that "Global Warming" was attributable to the sheer number of people on the planet and gave as an example how warm it got in a room full of people.

Imagine if all them folks farted in that room...the gases would kill the ozone layer. :O)

Ray
01/03/2013 11:24:00 PM · #158
Haha...that's funny Ray....

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Gun owners who value an imagined freedom over human life is reason enough to require restrictions.


Ah yes the human life equation.


...lets protect life at the fullest. Outlaw the pill I say. :O)

Ray


'cause the planet totally needs more human!


...as a matter of fact, I was reading an article just the other day that suggested that "Global Warming" was attributable to the sheer number of people on the planet and gave as an example how warm it got in a room full of people.

Imagine if all them folks farted in that room...the gases would kill the ozone layer. :O)

Ray
01/03/2013 11:28:31 PM · #159
Cory, in no other first-world, industrialized nation of which I'm aware is barely-restricted gun ownership considered to be a "right". And yet ALL of them, pretty much, share with Americans virtually all the other rights we hold so dear, give or take some inconsistencies. So we see all these people, basically, with freedom of speech, of worship, of press, and so forth and so on, but NOT sharing this American obsession with the "right" to barely-restricted, private ownership of machinery-of-death that would put that of, say, a Roman Legionnaire, to shame.

But you know what ELSE those countries have? All of 'em? UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!

So think about it, brother: think about the raw inanity of it, that so many of us are fighting tooth and nail to hold on to the tools of death, and at the same time fighting just as hard to keep the government from insuring our right to health! It's appalling!
01/03/2013 11:32:49 PM · #160
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Cory, in no other first-world, industrialized nation of which I'm aware is barely-restricted gun ownership considered to be a "right". And yet ALL of them, pretty much, share with Americans virtually all the other rights we hold so dear, give or take some inconsistencies. So we see all these people, basically, with freedom of speech, of worship, of press, and so forth and so on, but NOT sharing this American obsession with the "right" to barely-restricted, private ownership of machinery-of-death that would put that of, say, a Roman Legionnaire, to shame.

But you know what ELSE those countries have? All of 'em? UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!

So think about it, brother: think about the raw inanity of it, that so many of us are fighting tooth and nail to hold on to the tools of death, and at the same time fighting just as hard to keep the government from insuring our right to health! It's appalling!


Guess I'm one of the "problem" ones. I like my machinery-of-death, especially since we are indeed unique in that respect - and I'd prefer not to pay for universal healthcare, especially given the already atrocious cost of healthcare today.

The problem is this: Health insurance was once looked at like car insurance, you used it when a catastrophe struck.. Today if we used car insurance like we use health insurance we'd be going through insurance for new tires and oil changes, and would most certainly put in a claim if a headlight went out, or we needed a tow.

Ask the Doc how well he liked the Canadian healthcare system -- IIRC he moved to Korea so he could actually get decent medical care.
01/04/2013 12:16:17 AM · #161
And medical care used to be affordable, and GPs like my grandfather sometimes got paid with hams and vegetables. So what's your point?
01/04/2013 12:23:41 AM · #162
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

And medical care used to be affordable, and GPs like my grandfather sometimes got paid with hams and vegetables. So what's your point?


That owning guns, and paying for your own healthcare aren't necessarily bad things.

Just because we're different doesn't mean we're wrong.

Message edited by author 2013-01-04 00:25:07.
01/04/2013 01:05:57 AM · #163
Originally posted by Cory:

Ask the Doc how well he liked the Canadian healthcare system -- IIRC he moved to Korea so he could actually get decent medical care.
Don't know what you're implying, but from my perspective, Tommy Douglas was a fucking genius. I've been to the hospital for many things and I couldn't tell you what any of it costs. Pull out the green card and all is taken care of.

All I know is I'd rather my Canadian system, with all the waste and whatnot, over your American system any day of the week.
01/04/2013 01:59:05 AM · #164
Originally posted by Venser:

Originally posted by Cory:

Ask the Doc how well he liked the Canadian healthcare system -- IIRC he moved to Korea so he could actually get decent medical care.
Don't know what you're implying, but from my perspective, Tommy Douglas was a fucking genius. I've been to the hospital for many things and I couldn't tell you what any of it costs. Pull out the green card and all is taken care of.

All I know is I'd rather my Canadian system, with all the waste and whatnot, over your American system any day of the week.


Could be that it's better... Not that I'd know - all my life the rule has been "if you can sew it back on yourself, why go to the hospital?"..
01/04/2013 02:06:53 AM · #165
Originally posted by Venser:

Pull out the green card and all is taken care of.



ROFL, I just realized... It works the same way here! ;)

(of course, I'm just joking... The benefits listed in the linked article are actually provided before they are determined eligible or ineligible for their green card)

Message edited by author 2013-01-04 02:08:47.
01/04/2013 08:49:33 AM · #166
I am glad that I don't live in Illinois right now...They are about to kill an entire industry in that state. Armalite (1 maker of the ar-15) has already talked about leaving the state. I wonder just how many employees they have???
01/04/2013 09:44:10 AM · #167
Not to worry, Shannon assured me that the legistators in a state could not make such laws.....all is good !

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

I am glad that I don't live in Illinois right now...They are about to kill an entire industry in that state. Armalite (1 maker of the ar-15) has already talked about leaving the state. I wonder just how many employees they have???
01/04/2013 09:47:30 AM · #168
If the government can FORCE us to BUY a health care plan or face penalty why can't a future administration FORCE everyone to BUY a gun...or face a penalty?

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Cory, in no other first-world, industrialized nation of which I'm aware is barely-restricted gun ownership considered to be a "right". And yet ALL of them, pretty much, share with Americans virtually all the other rights we hold so dear, give or take some inconsistencies. So we see all these people, basically, with freedom of speech, of worship, of press, and so forth and so on, but NOT sharing this American obsession with the "right" to barely-restricted, private ownership of machinery-of-death that would put that of, say, a Roman Legionnaire, to shame.

But you know what ELSE those countries have? All of 'em? UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!

So think about it, brother: think about the raw inanity of it, that so many of us are fighting tooth and nail to hold on to the tools of death, and at the same time fighting just as hard to keep the government from insuring our right to health! It's appalling!
01/04/2013 01:12:46 PM · #169
Excerpt from a column by Lawrence Brown in the Cape Cod Times today:

Originally posted by The Road to Mogadishu:

...I've heard humanity divided into three groups: the wolves, the sheep, and the sheep dogs. In this arrangement, the vast majority of Americans are sheep, potential victims ... soft, vulnerable and edible. Then there are wolves and we know what wolves do. Finally, there are the sheep dogs. This last group are not only professional soldiers and police officers but anyone else who wants to imagine himself to be one. All he has to do is buy a gun, which is not difficult. There are three times more gun outlets in America than grocery stores.

Has possession of a gun ever saved its owner's life? Certainly. Now we have to ask where the balance-point lies between the right of self-protection and the risk of public endangerment. And there is powerful evidence that the weaponization of American society has become more a threat than a protection.

Push gun advocates hard enough and the self-defense position gives way to their final argument that the gun-owning public serves as the final check against the predations of Big Government. For this to make sense, we have to see as heroic the armed opposition to a democratically-elected popular government. Traditionally, we have defined this as treason.

For it not to be treason, the gun-owning minority would have to be the only true patriots left. If it is a public good to purchase AK-47s with which to confront government, why not rocket-propelled grenades, or even a tank? For any of this reasoning to make sense, it ultimately requires turning privately-held weapons against American servicemen and police. It requires believing oneself more patriotic than a government that presumably no longer reflects the true ideological and demographic spirit of the country.

You cannot be a real sheep-dog without wolves. You cannot be a sheep dog unless you are superior to the rest of your countrymen whom you consider to be sheep. You cannot be heroic unless America is transformed into a dangerous, law-less place where the law itself is either out-gunned by the citizenry or is seen as an enemy of the people.

It's not the guns that threaten us; it's an ideology that sees private weaponry as essential to a meaningful life.


(emphasis added by me)

ETA:

There are more than 129,817 federally licensed firearms dealers in the United States, according to the latest Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives numbers (as of Aug. 1). Of those, 51,438 are retail gun stores, 7,356 are pawn shops and 61,562 are collectors, with the balance of the licenses belonging mostly to manufacturers and importers of firearms and destructive devices.

Grocery Stores in the U.S. (2011) 36,569 (source: Food Marketing Institute)

Note that even if you discount the other categories, retail gun stores outnumber grocery stores.

(THat's assuming these numbers are correct, of course, but no matter how you slice it up this is a sobering comparison...)

Message edited by author 2013-01-04 13:20:13.
01/04/2013 01:39:18 PM · #170
Originally posted by Bear_Music:


Originally posted by The Road to Mogadishu:



Push gun advocates hard enough and the self-defense position gives way to their final argument that the gun-owning public serves as the final check against the predations of Big Government. For this to make sense, we have to see as heroic the armed opposition to a democratically-elected popular government. Traditionally, we have defined this as treason.




But Bear, that's a false premise - I don't argue that it's any such thing - my argument hinges on the fact that the statement is "shall not be infringed upon", not "shall not be infringed upon as long as there is demonstrable need and benefit to society".
01/04/2013 02:01:56 PM · #171
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Excerpt from a column by Lawrence Brown in the Cape Cod Times today:

Originally posted by The Road to Mogadishu:

...I've heard humanity divided into three groups: the wolves, the sheep, and the sheep dogs. In this arrangement, the vast majority of Americans are sheep, potential victims ... soft, vulnerable and edible. Then there are wolves and we know what wolves do. Finally, there are the sheep dogs. This last group are not only professional soldiers and police officers but anyone else who wants to imagine himself to be one. All he has to do is buy a gun, which is not difficult. There are three times more gun outlets in America than grocery stores.

Has possession of a gun ever saved its owner's life? Certainly. Now we have to ask where the balance-point lies between the right of self-protection and the risk of public endangerment. And there is powerful evidence that the weaponization of American society has become more a threat than a protection.

Push gun advocates hard enough and the self-defense position gives way to their final argument that the gun-owning public serves as the final check against the predations of Big Government. For this to make sense, we have to see as heroic the armed opposition to a democratically-elected popular government. Traditionally, we have defined this as treason.

For it not to be treason, the gun-owning minority would have to be the only true patriots left. If it is a public good to purchase AK-47s with which to confront government, why not rocket-propelled grenades, or even a tank? For any of this reasoning to make sense, it ultimately requires turning privately-held weapons against American servicemen and police. It requires believing oneself more patriotic than a government that presumably no longer reflects the true ideological and demographic spirit of the country.

You cannot be a real sheep-dog without wolves. You cannot be a sheep dog unless you are superior to the rest of your countrymen whom you consider to be sheep. You cannot be heroic unless America is transformed into a dangerous, law-less place where the law itself is either out-gunned by the citizenry or is seen as an enemy of the people.

It's not the guns that threaten us; it's an ideology that sees private weaponry as essential to a meaningful life.


(emphasis added by me)

ETA:

There are more than 129,817 federally licensed firearms dealers in the United States, according to the latest Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives numbers (as of Aug. 1). Of those, 51,438 are retail gun stores, 7,356 are pawn shops and 61,562 are collectors, with the balance of the licenses belonging mostly to manufacturers and importers of firearms and destructive devices.

Grocery Stores in the U.S. (2011) 36,569 (source: Food Marketing Institute)

Note that even if you discount the other categories, retail gun stores outnumber grocery stores.

(THat's assuming these numbers are correct, of course, but no matter how you slice it up this is a sobering comparison...)


Typical anti-gun ignorance. Who is advocating widespread civilian ownership of AK-47's? This guy evidently has no clue what means.

His argument is based entirely on the myth that people purchase and use guns simply to feel some kind of false heroism, which is complete crap. Do people only purchase high performance automobiles because they feel sexually inadequate?
01/04/2013 02:13:29 PM · #172
Originally posted by Spork99:

Do people only purchase high performance automobiles because they feel sexually inadequate?


Pretty much. ;D

01/04/2013 02:43:32 PM · #173
Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Do people only purchase high performance automobiles because they feel sexually inadequate?


Pretty much. ;D


Gun manufacturers are missing the boat. They should be making the guns bright colors like blue, red, yellow and orange just like those sports cars. Children love colors.

Message edited by author 2013-01-04 14:44:05.
01/04/2013 02:50:57 PM · #174
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Do people only purchase high performance automobiles because they feel sexually inadequate?


Pretty much. ;D


Gun manufacturers are missing the boat. They should be making the guns bright colors like blue, red, yellow and orange just like those sports cars. Children love colors.


however, YOU'RE missing the point, that those flashy colors of sport cars aren't so much for the MEN as they are for the shallow WOMEN who are attracted to opulent displays of wealth.

GUNS are simply for men to feel dominant over other MEN, no need for flashy colors. the tougher, blacker, meaner looking the better.

(this should be taken in the same tone of sarcasm as you offered)
01/04/2013 02:56:36 PM · #175
Originally posted by Cory:

But Bear, that's a false premise - I don't argue that it's any such thing -

I never said it was YOUR argument, Cory. I just found the essay interesting and disturbing. It wasn't pointed at you. In fact, if I recall correctly, didn't you at one point say (or agree) that anyone who thought they could protect themselves against the gov't of today with weapons like these was dreaming?
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 01/27/2021 03:07:33 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/27/2021 03:07:33 PM EST.