|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
 Posted - 03/29/2002 : 04:51:12 [Permalink]
|
And just because I'm on an anti-PC tear lately:
Incest: Go for it. Who the hell cares?
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
No. Because I strongly doubt it will indeed be true consent. If a child's been molested by his/her father since childhood, what may look like consent when the child grows up, may be a conditioning we don't know about. So: No way.
So because it MIGHT not be consent as you define it you tell everybody "No?"
I don't know the answer to this question, so it's not rhetorical: what percentage of cases of adult incest are between individuals who were abused as children?
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
“Euthanasia.”
Again, good question. In the true meaning of the word, the right to chose when you die, and die with dignity, I'm all for it. The problem comes, when you have elderly people, who might think they've become “a burden” to their family and/or society.
It's a natural objection but not, I think, a valid one. So what if that's an elderly person's reason for deciding? Why can't they use that as a reason? I suspect your argument really lies in the assumption that the elderly have a diminished capacity for rational decision-making. This is sometimes true, oftentimes not. In cases where it is suspected, there are mechanisms for having it medically/psychologically determined in which case the person should not be able to decide to die for themselves.
If, on the other hand, a 105 year old man is determined to be mentally competent, then he can decide to die because he doesn't like the wallpaper for all I care.
My kids still love me. |
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 08:45:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
“Gun control.”
Yes, please. Let's face it, without the gun, the bullet won't cause any harm. I don't care about the gun-freaks claiming it's “the person WITH the gun who's dangerous”. He/she will be a lot less lethal without a gun.
Ah, yes. Gun freaks. All our discussion withers to dust in the face of such insight. And the logical brilliance of "I don't care about" leaves me speechless.
I concede.
My kids still love me.
Yet again you beat me to it. I'm glad I kept reading before hitting the reply button on this one...
Many, many people (myself included) use logic and reason to conclude that yes, indeed, it is the person pulling the trigger that is the danger, not the inanimate gun.
I'm sure they, as do I, would take offense at being broadly labelled "gun freaks".
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 09:16:09 [Permalink]
|
Now that I think about it, TD, there seems to be a workable compromise.
It's not the people who hurt people, and it's not the gun that hurts people. It's the trigger-finger that hurts people.
Let's take away everybody's trigger finger.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 11:26:06 [Permalink]
|
re gunfreaks:
If you think that you should have the Personal Freedom to own guns, than what is your rationalization concerning the 'as long as it does not hurt anyone else' part we talked about earlier?
How far do you think do those rights extend? All kinds of weapons, or do you draw a line somwhere. (private ownership of automatic guns, tanks, strong cryptography or nukes)
Do you think some sort of gouvernment control through a license for gun ownership similar to the one for driving a car would be acceptable?
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 11:59:25 [Permalink]
|
Dammit, Lars! This is nearly as bad as making me disagree with Tokyo! Sheesh...
Anyway, here's a copy of what I recently posted over on the JREF board. It's imperfect as it was done quickly and I don't feel like tweaking it, but here you go. It should demonstrate that I recognize I am not an 'absolutist' regarding gun rights:
I am not in principle against the very idea of gun licensing/registration/whatever.
I also think that the analogy with vehicle registration and driver's licensing that gun control advocates frequently use is actually a good one, surprise, surprise, but for different reasons.
What vehicle registration does:
1. Records the primary owner of a vehicle that is used on public roads
2. Ensures the vehicle is insured (in some states it's the owner who's insured while in some it's the vehicle; but the idea is the same)
What driver's licensing does:
1. Sets state-mandated (not federally mandated) minimum ages for driving on public roads
2. In most states, ensures the individual has at least minimal driving skills and knowledge of driving protocols
---
What vehicle registration does not do:
1. Prohibit anyone from owning a vehicle
2. Set an age limit on ownership of a vehicle
3. Prohibit any use of a vehicle on private property
What driver's licensing does not do:
1. Prohibit anyone of any age from driving on private property
2. Require anyone to demonstrate a need for a driver's license before granting one
---
What 'anti-vehicle' laws do not do:
Withdraw an individual's license to drive because the individual might possibly have a wreck or might possibly drive while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
---
Come up with something similar for firearms and I'll at least listen.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 11:59:53 [Permalink]
|
There seems to be a common misconception among the gun control lobby in the US that guns are used only for killing people. Or this seems to be the point they try the hardest to drive into the minds of people.
I'm single, a woman, and happen to like hiking. If I don't have someone to go with me, I'll oftentimes go alone. However, lack of people to go with me often prevents me from going on extended hiking trips, where I'll be alone in the backcountry for days. Should I not be allowed to carry a weapon in this case for self-protection?
I can see courses in learning to handle and fire a weapon before purchase. I've also heard the arguments against registration, and am unsure if I agree with the paranoia behind the argument but can see and understand the point of the argument and worst case, it is a real possibility.
Though I doubt I've answered your question Lars, I think we (the US anyway) need to enforce our current gun regulations without adding additional mud to the quagmire. I dunno. For now, no.
---
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
<i>No Sense of Obligation</i> by Matt Young |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 12:52:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dammit, Lars! This is nearly as bad as making me disagree with Tokyo! Sheesh...
That's ok, just let me know and I'll try extra hard to convince you of the errors of your ways... 
quote:
It should demonstrate that I recognize I am not an 'absolutist' regarding gun rights
Me either.
quote:
I am not in principle against the very idea of gun licensing/registration/whatever.
I don't have a firm stance, but one thing that bothers me about the analogy is the fact that gun ownership is (arguably) a Constitutional Right, while driving is not.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 12:57:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
re gunfreaks:
If you think that you should have the Personal Freedom to own guns, than what is your rationalization concerning the 'as long as it does not hurt anyone else' part we talked about earlier?
In this context, one would conceivably only purposefully harm someone with a gun either in the line of duty or in self-defence. The argument regarding accidental gun deaths should have no bearing on the argument. After all, many many things cause accidental death, and many of them are less "needed" than guns.
We might want to start a separate thread, if there is interest in a gun control type debate.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 03/29/2002 12:59:36 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 13:15:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Our defamation laws have pretty clear limits, refined over centuries, and I generally accept these.
Okay, then here's a "hot potato"
Passing the local high school yesterday there were a bunch of black teens hanging about. Pirate scraves on their heads, baggy jeans down to their knees.
Every other word out of their mouths was Nigger this and Nigger that.
Now if the "N" word was spoken by my lily white lips would that be wrong? Does one racial group have freedom of vocabulary and another not?
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 13:23:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Slater:
Now if the "N" word was spoken by my lily white lips would that be wrong? Does one racial group have freedom of vocabulary and another not?
Yup.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 13:31:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yup.
What is that word again when one ethnic group group says that only they can do something like drink from a certain water fountain, ride in the front of a bus, or speak as they please, and another ethnic can't because of the color of their skin?
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 13:32:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Our defamation laws have pretty clear limits, refined over centuries, and I generally accept these.
Okay, then here's a "hot potato"
Passing the local high school yesterday there were a bunch of black teens hanging about. Pirate scraves on their heads, baggy jeans down to their knees.
Every other word out of their mouths was Nigger this and Nigger that.
Now if the "N" word was spoken by my lily white lips would that be wrong? Does one racial group have freedom of vocabulary and another not?
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel
I think that this is somthing slightly different than the original libel issue. Afterall nobody is going sue because you were making an unsuported claim about somebodys skincolor.
The point here would be the insult inherent in not the word itself, but it's meaning in context. When you say it automatically gets a different meaning.
The whole idea behind the PC-Approach is that the words themselves somehow can be good or bad. This does not work in real life. It is to oversimplified and generalizied, but unfortunatley people prefer easy and simple solutions to ones that would actually work.
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 13:37:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Slater:
What is that word again when one ethnic group group says that only they can do something like drink from a certain water fountain, ride in the front of a bus, or speak as they please, and another ethnic can't because of the color of their skin?
Victory?
Utopia?
{And on the really off chance someone doesn't realize it, I'm on Slater's side on this issue}
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 13:39:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lars:
The whole idea behind the PC-Approach is that the words themselves somehow can be good or bad. This does not work in real life. It is to oversimplified and generalizied, but unfortunatley people prefer easy and simple solutions to ones that would actually work.
I disagree. The is only part of the idea behind PC. The whole idea is that this (the idea of words themselves as bad or good) applies only to white american males and not to others.
Or, to paraphrase Slater, we can't drink out of the good fountain.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 14:48:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Lars:
The whole idea behind the PC-Approach is that the words themselves somehow can be good or bad. This does not work in real life. It is to oversimplified and generalizied, but unfortunatley people prefer easy and simple solutions to ones that would actually work.
I disagree. The is only part of the idea behind PC. The whole idea is that this (the idea of words themselves as bad or good) applies only to white american males and not to others.
Or, to paraphrase Slater, we can't drink out of the good fountain.
My kids still love me.
Actually I find the discreminating aproach to PC far more logical then the equal one. Those cases where rap-artist are critzied for using the N-word don't really make much sense to me.
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
