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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Is this hypocrisy?
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 176 - 200 of 1154, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/04/2013 05:12:47 PM · #176
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

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?


I do not necessarily support the idea that gun control is about taking away the peoples' ability to present armed resistance to their government, but
I do take exception to the assertion that people with small arms cannot stand against a modern army. There are examples all over the world that demonstrate otherwise.

The US military (arguably the most modern and well-trained fighting force the world has ever known) has spent more than a decade fighting a group of people armed mostly with small arms. Other examples; the US in post Saddam Iraq, the Russians in Afghanistan, Israel and the Palestinians, the US in Vietnam, the colonists skirmishing attacks on the British during the American Revolution... Asymmetric warfare has been going on for centuries...even Sun Tzu refers to it "If he (the enemy) is superior in strength, evade him. If his forces are united, separate them. Attack him where he is unprepared; appear where you are not expected."
01/04/2013 05:56:58 PM · #177
Originally posted by Cory:

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.


...and just because some people are paranoid it doesn't mean that they AREN'T being followed :O)

Ray
01/04/2013 06:01:36 PM · #178
Originally posted by Cory:



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?"..


Personally, I would much rather a competent person re-attach my leg than say a seamstress and I would bet good money that my seamstress does much prettier needlework. :O)

Ray
01/04/2013 06:04:59 PM · #179
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???


Maybe they can simply move it a tad further north where lots of them are being manufactured.

Ray
01/05/2013 09:02:36 AM · #180
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.

They are pink guns have been out for a while now ...
01/05/2013 09:43:09 AM · #181
Originally posted by Spork99:

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

Are you SERIOUS????

I've been a high-performance car freak my whole life......buying, building, restoring, and driving them, and for the most part, the high performance car buyers I've seen are filling a gap in their self-confidence in one form or another.

Yes, I've known a lot of people over the years who are car freaks because it's all about the cars, but it's certainly not the norm.
01/05/2013 10:20:23 AM · #182
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Spork99:

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

Are you SERIOUS????

I've been a high-performance car freak my whole life......buying, building, restoring, and driving them, and for the most part, the high performance car buyers I've seen are filling a gap in their self-confidence in one form or another.

And you know this...how?

Geeze, Jeb, I love you like a brother but what qualifies you to pass that sort of judgment?
01/05/2013 11:08:27 PM · #183
I'm not sure this will work, but I had an interesting meta question to ask that relates to this subject...

A few weeks ago I read an interesting article where the author contended that the meaning of the term "tolerance" has changed over time. Originally a "tolerant" person would hold that someone who held a view opposed to their own had a valid right to do so and yet one could still believe they were wrong in a very real way. The famous quote attributed to Voltaire, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." sums the idea up nicely. However, over time, postmodernism influenced the idea and "tolerance" now not only held respect for someone holding an opposing view, but required one to understand that this view was just as valid as your own. One could no longer believe your opponent was wrong (or any "less right") and still be considered "tolerant".

We all know that, in general, Hollywood and, really, the vocal participants of this site have a left leaning view of the world. Most of the time, when such people disagree with someone they do so on the grounds that their opponents are trying to restrict some activity in society. Those against abortion are trying to impose their view upon someone else (who doesn't necessarily hold this view). Those against gay marriage are, likewise, trying to do the same thing. This is viewed as "intolerant" (in the postmodern sense of the term). Interestingly, in the debate on gun control, the shoe is on the other foot. The liberal view now holds that, when it comes to guns, "society should not do X" (whatever X is...sell guns without trigger locks, own assault rifles, own high capacity magazines, own handguns, etc.). In other words, they are attempting to impose their view of what is best for society upon the rest of society (who may or may not agree).

So, swinging back to the idea of "tolerance", is Hollywood being hypocritical? Here are three interesting questions:

1) Could one be considered "intolerant" because they are against someone else marrying another man while not be considered equally "intolerant" because they are against someone else owning an AK-47? (forget which view is "correct", but focus on the idea of "tolerance")
2) Has the term "tolerance" lost any meaningful use in its postmodern understanding? Is the original idea a stronger concept?
3) Do the activities of this thread and the other thread on guns qualify as exhibiting "tolerance" on either side of the argument?
01/06/2013 12:52:42 AM · #184
My daughter is a liberal, who went to a liberal high school that prized tolerance. I new she was a smart girl when she realized that the few kids who held conservative views did not share the same protections of tolerance that were extended to racial and sexual diversity. If you are tolerant, you have to tolerate all divergent ideas equally, no matter how wrong you feel those ideas are.

But tolerance deals with ideas, when those ideas are extended out into actions that affect others, when there is a conflict between two divergent ideas or beliefs that result in concrete action of conflict, then tolerance is no longer a solution. We tolerate the beliefs of those who do not believe in immunizations for themselves, we have trouble when they do not immunize their kids, and we do not allow their non-immunized children to go to public school. Do what you want to yourself, but don't put the rest of us at risk.

I do not extend the same tolerance to guys who put society at risk with their hobbies if they are risky to the public at large than if they only risk their own lives.

On the original point that the O.P. raise of hypocrisy, I read something recently in a novel that changed my feelings towards that charge. In an era where people are unwilling to make value judgments, that are not willing to cleave to a single moral code. So those who have ideas that they might change over time are called "flip-floppers" rather than being seen as people willing to be educated and change with circumstances. Only those who never hold view points or once they come up with an idea never change from their view points, are not flip-floppers.

No one who follows a religion does not backslide from time to time. No one who aspires to be a better person than they are, does not fail in that attempt from time to time. The only way to not slip off your New Years resolutions is to not make any. If you espouse a better way of being than you can easily attain, you will be called a hypocrite.
01/06/2013 01:44:24 AM · #185
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

.... However, over time, postmodernism influenced the idea and "tolerance" now not only held respect for someone holding an opposing view, but required one to understand that this view was just as valid as your own. One could no longer believe your opponent was wrong (or any "less right") and still be considered "tolerant".

We all know that, in general, Hollywood and, really, the vocal participants of this site have a left leaning view of the world. Most of the time, when such people disagree with someone they do so on the grounds that their opponents are trying to restrict some activity in society. Those against abortion are trying to impose their view upon someone else (who doesn't necessarily hold this view). Those against gay marriage are, likewise, trying to do the same thing. This is viewed as "intolerant" (in the postmodern sense of the term). Interestingly, in the debate on gun control, the shoe is on the other foot. The liberal view now holds that, when it comes to guns, "society should not do X" (whatever X is...sell guns without trigger locks, own assault rifles, own high capacity magazines, own handguns, etc.). In other words, they are attempting to impose their view of what is best for society upon the rest of society (who may or may not agree).
......


But what about me? I don't really fit in there do I, given the fact that I'm all for gay marriage (I do live in South Beach for gosh sakes - I know more gay people than straight people these days), I'm pro choice, but I'm anti anti-gun legislation.

I tend to hold to a set of principles that aren't really defined by some silly prescribed political stance and spoon-fed worldview. I tend to think imposing anything on anyone is pretty much wrong, unless there's just no other choice (building about to fall down, evict tenants, that sort of thing).. Hence, let the gay ones get married, two or three at once for all I give a darn, for straight folks too if they choose, let the dope smokers enjoy their weed, the drinkers get drunk, and let folks build a back porch on their house without 5 permits - Honestly, it's a crazy thing to even be debating this stuff, once it comes to consenting adults, as long as they are mentally competent, not hurting (or extremely likely to hurt) someone else, and are generally just doing whatever it is they want to do (operating a still in the backyard? Cool!), you know. What would you call me? A libertarian? Hardly right, when you consider that I'd like fewer cops, but more cameras - more public transportation, government regulations on emissions, an effort similar to the race for nuclear arms and to the moon for new technologies for energy and terraforming (we need to do some quick and serious remediation around this place, and it might be useful elsewhere sometime soon too..)..

I just think that there are things that make really good sense, lower costs, increase effectiveness while maintaining a standard of conduct that is acceptable, along with other regulations that really just absolutely MUST be in place, given the well proven nature of enterprising humans.. Hell, I'd really even support cars that are able to limit maximum speeds to high-but-safe speeds for whatever the ambient conditions, and road, should permit. With sensors today, and GPS, there is no reason that this should be easy to to - and would save TONS of lives. Sensors that prevent crashes by taking away control from you, auto driving cars(all of these should be funded by our favorite Uncle).. There are TONS of ideas that I think are appropriate for the government to tackle and take on - I just think the line should be drawn at things that affect no-one other than the person involved (or their fetus[to a point]) in a significant way.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:


1) Could one be considered "intolerant" because they are against someone else marrying another man while not be considered equally "intolerant" because they are against someone else owning an AK-47? (forget which view is "correct", but focus on the idea of "tolerance")
2) Has the term "tolerance" lost any meaningful use in its postmodern understanding? Is the original idea a stronger concept?
3) Do the activities of this thread and the other thread on guns qualify as exhibiting "tolerance" on either side of the argument?


1. No, they are a doubly intolerant bastard. ;)
2. No, only when thrown about incorrectly - tolerance is still as it always has been - a quality characterized by the agreement to disagree politely.
3. Hell no, I'm not tolerant really, and I'm vocal in these threads, so I'm sure you're at least somewhat including me in that, and I don't think I'd characterize my arguments as tolerant - polite for sure, but not tolerant... And, why should they be? If I think you're going to make a horrible mistake that will affect me, then I darn well should no tolerate that - no need for a lack of civility usually, but equally no need for tolerance either, sometimes I will not agree to disagree, as a few arguments really are too important to settle upon such unstable ground, as it can only be a temporary state of balance where one side or the other will prevail in their moral "correctness".

So, does that make us bad people? Not in my opinion - I think we're all the more respectable for it - I think far better of the man who has the honor to stand for what he believes in (with the danger of being wrong!), than the poor fool who will always try to avoid all conflict through "tolerance".

Message edited by author 2013-01-06 01:45:54.
01/06/2013 02:09:42 AM · #186
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

. If you are tolerant, you have to tolerate all divergent ideas equally, no matter how wrong you feel those ideas are.


But tell me what you mean here. If you feel those ideas are wrong are you allowed to vocalize those feelings while remaining tolerant? Or is tolerance keeping your mouth closed? (In which case Rant folks are among the least tolerant people I know ;))

Originally posted by Brennan:

.
I do not extend the same tolerance to guys who put society at risk with their hobbies if they are risky to the public at large than if they only risk their own lives.


I knew the idea of harm to others comes up so often it would be a natural reply, but you must admit these views and arguments are largely in the eye of the beholder. Some may feel that abortions greatly harm society. Some may hold harms about things that would be very hard to quantify (eg. gay marriage), but does this invalidate their view? Heck, even something that seems to be straightforward like the harm guns present to society is, in fact, very, very hard to nail down. Most everybody who holds a view does so for what are, to them, rational reasons. Trying to qualify what is to be "tolerated" on this basis seems a tricky proposition.
01/06/2013 02:50:38 AM · #187
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Or is tolerance keeping your mouth closed?

In the liberal lexicon Silence=Assent. Democracy is all about trying to bring those who you disagree with around to your opinion, and part of tolerance is keeping an open enough mind that they just might bring you around to their opinion. Opinions should bend around facts, and as news facts are revealed, opinions should change. But silence is not a real good option, unless you agree with what is going on.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I knew the idea of harm to others comes up so often it would be a natural reply, but you must admit these views and arguments are largely in the eye of the beholder. Some may feel that abortions greatly harm society.


When you have to argue about the "harm to society" you have failed the test. The argument against abortion is the harm to the single individual fetus, and the risks to and rights of the pregnant woman: not some vague theoretical effect on society. When a conflict between irresolvable viewpoints has to be decided it can be done by laws and courts, but the greatest possible tolerance allows the minimization of the hand of the law. You do not have to approve of drinking to realize the prohibition was a bad idea. Sure, it would be good if no one used alcohol, but laws against it don't work and made things worse. Tolerable just means that you can put up with it, not that you like it.

Message edited by author 2013-01-06 04:39:55.
01/06/2013 12:47:59 PM · #188
Way to go MOM!!!! Georgia mom
01/06/2013 12:57:12 PM · #189
Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Way to go MOM!!!! Georgia mom
Accidental shootings for the win.
What was your point again?

Simply astounding how many accidental deaths occur from firearms, that when you tally up those numbers, and compare them to what you're implying, it still doesn't justify the means.
01/06/2013 02:12:30 PM · #190
Originally posted by Venser:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Way to go MOM!!!! Georgia mom
Accidental shootings for the win.
What was your point again?

Simply astounding how many accidental deaths occur from firearms, that when you tally up those numbers, and compare them to what you're implying, it still doesn't justify the means.


You forgot this one... //abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/national_world&id=8940920
01/06/2013 02:20:33 PM · #191
The fact is that most stories of people using firearms for defense aren't reported in the news unless they are sensational. Comparing the number of incidents reported in papers is ridiculous beyond providing evidence that these kids of incidents do occur. The disparity in numbers is more likely due to the fact that someone using a gun to defend themselves is typically far less sensational than a horrific accident.
01/06/2013 02:35:49 PM · #192
Originally posted by Spork99:

The fact is that most stories of people using firearms for defense aren't reported in the news unless they are sensational. Comparing the number of incidents reported in papers is ridiculous beyond providing evidence that these kids of incidents do occur. The disparity in numbers is more likely due to the fact that someone using a gun to defend themselves is typically far less sensational than a horrific accident.

And you have this information from...where? This sounds a LOT like what we call "confirmation bias" to me.
01/06/2013 03:34:11 PM · #193
Googling "statistics firearms in the home", and picking the first results (skipping the ones that are obviously politically motivated, like the Brady campaign)....

"The findings of this study add to the body of research showing an association between guns in the home and risk of a violent death. Those persons with guns in the home were at significantly greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a suicide in the home relative to other causes of death. The findings showing an increased risk of homicide in homes with guns are also consistent with previous research."

"A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder."

"For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."


I couldn't find any links to studies at all that showed that guns made the gun owner or anyone in their family safer.

01/06/2013 04:51:01 PM · #194
Originally posted by Spork99:

The fact is that most stories of people using firearms for defense aren't reported in the news unless they are sensational. Comparing the number of incidents reported in papers is ridiculous beyond providing evidence that these kids of incidents do occur. The disparity in numbers is more likely due to the fact that someone using a gun to defend themselves is typically far less sensational than a horrific accident.


I guess things much be a tad different in the USA than here then. In Canada if you discharge a firearm (except when hunting of course) you can almost bet that it will be reported and that you can expect a visit from the authorities who will want answers to a bevy of questions.

Oh, I might add that shooting someone 5 times in the face and neck is, in my definition at least, something that is rather horrific.

Ray

Message edited by author 2013-01-06 16:55:37.
01/06/2013 06:07:35 PM · #195
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

At a fundamental level, I think it's hypocritical, yes. If "celebrities" put their money where their mouths are at, and refused to act these roles, THAT would be meaningful.


+1
01/06/2013 06:16:58 PM · #196
Originally posted by Ann:

"A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder."


That's an erroneous stat. Naturally there are more friendly visitors to a persons home than there are intruders and thus the odds are stacked in the visitors favour. Poor education and/or lack of safety training seems to be the root cause IMO.

All I am saying is the person responsible/owner of the firearm should carry the burden if the weapon is "obtained" and used by someone else to commit a crime/murder etc. notwithstanding an evaluation of fitness to own and carry.

(PS: I can see all the counter arguments to my statement above, none of which are lost on me, but safety precautions (LAW) (locked in a safe rather than in the studio desk top drawer or a cupboard shoebox) seem lacking in the States?)
01/06/2013 06:37:39 PM · #197
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Spork99:

The fact is that most stories of people using firearms for defense aren't reported in the news unless they are sensational. Comparing the number of incidents reported in papers is ridiculous beyond providing evidence that these kids of incidents do occur. The disparity in numbers is more likely due to the fact that someone using a gun to defend themselves is typically far less sensational than a horrific accident.


I guess things much be a tad different in the USA than here then. In Canada if you discharge a firearm (except when hunting of course) you can almost bet that it will be reported and that you can expect a visit from the authorities who will want answers to a bevy of questions.

Oh, I might add that shooting someone 5 times in the face and neck is, in my definition at least, something that is rather horrific.

Ray


Sure, the incidents where the firearm is discharged in the course of self defense are more likely to be reported in the news. The incidents where the aggressor backs off and retreats once they realize their victim is armed are far less newsworthy. In my case, the police simply reported that the perpetrators ran when they realized I was there. They made no mention of the fact that I was holding a 12ga shotgun. As far as I know, it never made the news.

Is having shot someone 5 times in the face and neck any less horrific than what would have happened had the mother not been armed. Would it have been better had it turned out like the Petit home invasion case in CT?

Message edited by author 2013-01-06 18:41:35.
01/06/2013 07:24:07 PM · #198
Originally posted by RayEthier:

..
Oh, I might add that shooting someone 5 times in the face and neck is, in my definition at least, something that is rather horrific.

Ray


Damn right it is. Bet every robber who reads that cringes like hell. It's called "deterrent" and works better than our penal system where you are provided with company, free time, food, and cable tv.

One of the best reasons to not outlaw guns is exactly this - regardless of the real effectiveness, you can bet I'd be very scared of an armed home owner if I was a robber, it certainly would worry me FAR more than the police.
01/06/2013 07:48:42 PM · #199
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

..
Oh, I might add that shooting someone 5 times in the face and neck is, in my definition at least, something that is rather horrific.

Ray


Damn right it is. Bet every robber who reads that cringes like hell. It's called "deterrent" and works better than our penal system where you are provided with company, free time, food, and cable tv.

One of the best reasons to not outlaw guns is exactly this - regardless of the real effectiveness, you can bet I'd be very scared of an armed home owner if I was a robber, it certainly would worry me FAR more than the police.


I can guarantee if someone breaks into my house...they will be hurting.
01/06/2013 09:33:38 PM · #200
Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

..
Oh, I might add that shooting someone 5 times in the face and neck is, in my definition at least, something that is rather horrific.

Ray


Damn right it is. Bet every robber who reads that cringes like hell. It's called "deterrent" and works better than our penal system where you are provided with company, free time, food, and cable tv.

One of the best reasons to not outlaw guns is exactly this - regardless of the real effectiveness, you can bet I'd be very scared of an armed home owner if I was a robber, it certainly would worry me FAR more than the police.


I can guarantee if someone breaks into my house...they will be hurting.


Well, of course the HOPE is that they simply choose to get a job instead.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 01/27/2021 02:12:47 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 02:12:47 PM EST.