Another record month of gun sales in DEC

[monovillage]

Mine doesn't have a name, does that mean I have no belief system?

I also don't believe in Santa Claus, whats that called? Anti-Claus maybe? SantaAnti? Asantati?

You don't believe in Santa Claus? You friggin heretic, burning at the stake is too good for you!

 

[HAL9000]

I'll disagree with that statement. Not using deadly force on someone that's assaulting your spouse is certainly not logical. Only a religious or moral precept would prevent someone from defending a spouse in that instance.

Actually it's pure cold logic, that's the point. Someone being assaulted is a lesser wrong than someone being killed, therefore the best logical outcome is the assault.

Perfect logic.

I highly doubt his "atheism" is the reason that he wouldn't defend his spouse and if was (insert religion) he would probably hold the same stance.

I didn't say I wouldn't defend my spouse, where the hell are you getting that from?

 

[Darwin333]

Actually it's pure cold logic, that's the point. Someone being assaulted is a lesser wrong than someone being killed, therefore the best logical outcome is the assault.

Perfect logic.

While they are many different levels of "assault", on some of them we will simply have to agree to disagree. Some assaults can leave the victim alive but completely destroy their lives leaving a person an "empty shell". I equate that to a lifetime of torture and the death of a guilty person to prevent that from happening is logically appropriate if it is required.

I didn't say I wouldn't defend my spouse, where the hell are you getting that from?

Sorry, I got that from Mono's post and didn't confirm that you actually stated it. I stand corrected.

 

[monovillage]

Actually it's pure cold logic, that's the point. Someone being assaulted is a lesser wrong than someone being killed, therefore the best logical outcome is the assault.

Perfect logic.

Not logic, logic would say that your own interests, such as your spouse, are more important to you then the life or injury of an assailant.

I tried to use the term "deadly force" so there wouldn't be a misunderstanding about your defense of a wife with something other then a firearm.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Actually it's pure cold logic, that's the point. Someone being assaulted is a lesser wrong than someone being killed, therefore the best logical outcome is the assault.

Perfect logic.

An innocent person being harmed in any way is a far greater wrong than a criminal being killed. You statement assumes both people are equally valuable which they are not.

 

[HAL9000]

While they are many different levels of "assault", on some of them we will simply have to agree to disagree. Some assaults can leave the victim alive but completely destroy their lives leaving a person an "empty shell". I equate that to a lifetime of torture and the death of a guilty person to prevent that from happening is logically appropriate if it is required.

As a person with a severe mental illness, a member of several mental illness groups, and someone who knows a few people with mental health problems that mean they are unable to function in the real world in any meaningful way, I can happily say that you are better off alive, because even as an empty shell there is the possibility of joy in your future. I know a paranoid schizophrenic who hasn't left his house in about 11 years, he's unable to communicate with people from the outside world without it causing him extreme emotional distress that can last months, and yet he hasn't killed him self. Why? Because sometimes, just sometimes he can be happy.

I know people who's mental health problems stem from extreme emotional, sexual and physical abuse sustained over many years, these people would rather be alive swell.

In my opinion, and in my experience the potential lost by the ending of a life is a tragedy as every life has the potential to be magnificent and beneficial to the others in the world, even if it's only for a moment.

An assault, no matter how brutal, does end and can be recovered from, a death is absolute.

Sorry, I got that from Mono's post and didn't confirm that you actually stated it. I stand corrected.

No problem, sorry for snapping.

 

[HAL9000]

Not logic, logic would say that your own interests, such as your spouse, are more important to you then the life or injury of an assailant.

To me, yes but as a person looking at the world abstractly and making rationalisations about what should or should not be legal from a logical standpoint (as I try to be when discussing guns) my personal biases with regards to my close family do not enter into it. Logic isn't selfish.

I tried to use the term "deadly force" so there wouldn't be a misunderstanding about your defense of a wife with something other then a firearm.

Fair enough.

An innocent person being harmed in any way is a far greater wrong than a criminal being killed. You statement assumes both people are equally valuable which they are not.

Both have the same potential, they have the potential to be anything and nothing. Destroying the most potential is the greatest wrong.

Which is why I value the life of a child greater than that of an OAP.

 

[monovillage]

To me, yes but as a person looking at the world abstractly and making rationalisations about what should or should not be legal from a logical standpoint (as I try to be when discussing guns) my personal biases with regards to my close family do not enter into it. Logic isn't selfish.



Fair enough.



Both have the same potential, they have the potential to be anything and nothing. Destroying the most potential is the greatest wrong.

Which is why I value the life of a child greater than that of an OAP.

A religion by any other name would smell as sweet.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck, you can call it anything you want, but that duck is still a religion.

 

[HAL9000]

A religion by any other name would smell as sweet.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck, you can call it anything you want, but that duck is still a religion.

OK... :|

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Both have the same potential, they have the potential to be anything and nothing. Destroying the most potential is the greatest wrong.

No they don't, one is scum that has decided their own life has no value. If the innocent person did not kill them then we would have one unjustly harmed person and another rotting away in prison, not much potential there.

You may have a warped sense of reality where every murderer and rapist is really a wonderful person who will turn out to be the next MLK or Gandhi but the rest of us don't have to suffer for your delusion.

 

[HAL9000]

No they don't, one is scum that has decided their own life has no value. If the innocent person did not kill them then we would have one unjustly harmed person and another rotting away in prison, not much potential there.

You may have a warped sense of reality where every murderer and rapist is really a wonderful person who will turn out to be the next MLK or Gandhi but the rest of us don't have to suffer for your delusion.

Anyone has the potential to turn their life around and contribute to the world.

 

[Darwin333]

A religion by any other name would smell as sweet.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck, you can call it anything you want, but that duck is still a religion.

Huh? His views are sort of reasonable logic (not, imho, rational but at least reasonable) and the other is hocus pokus man in the clouds stuff. They don't look, sound, or smell anything similar at all.

He can explain exactly how he got to his view points and his logic behind it. I might not agree with them but at least he can explain how he came to that conclusion in a reasonable fashion. 95% of religious people believe in it because their parents did and taught them to.

 

[HAL9000]

Huh? His views are sort of reasonable logic (not, imho, rational but at least reasonable) and the other is hocus pokus man in the clouds stuff. They don't look, sound, or smell anything similar at all.

He can explain exactly how he got to his view points and his logic behind it. I might not agree with them but at least he can explain how he came to that conclusion in a reasonable fashion. 95% of religious people believe in it because their parents did and taught them to.

*INTERNET HIGH FIVE!*
​

This is the point I'm making, you don't have to agree with me but I have my reasons, I'm not saying angels told me to think it.

 

[monovillage]

Huh? His views are sort of reasonable logic (not, imho, rational but at least reasonable) and the other is hocus pokus man in the clouds stuff. They don't look, sound, or smell anything similar at all.

He can explain exactly how he got to his view points and his logic behind it. I might not agree with them but at least he can explain how he came to that conclusion in a reasonable fashion. 95% of religious people believe in it because their parents did and taught them to.

He wants to impose his opinions, reasons and views on people that don't believe or agree with him. If that isn't a form of religion, then I don't know what it is.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm

 

[HAL9000]

He wants to impose his opinions, reasons and views on people that don't believe or agree with him. If that isn't a form of religion, then I don't know what it is.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm

You don't know what is.

People imposing their opinions on each other may be a part of religion but all people who impose their opinions on others are not by definition religious.

I'm not insisting that people do what I believe to be right, I'm saying that I believe it is a moral good to ban guns. My government agrees, my nation agrees. I'm not coming here and telling you all to sell your guns am I?

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Anyone has the potential to turn their life around and contribute to the world.

If the price for that potential is the suffering of an innocent person it's to steep a price for me.

 

[HAL9000]

If the price for that potential is the suffering of an innocent person it's to steep a price for me.

Fair enough, I don't think that people should be able to make the decision on who lives and who dies except in incredibly extreme circumstances.

 

[Darwin333]

He wants to impose his opinions, reasons and views on people that don't believe or agree with him. If that isn't a form of religion, then I don't know what it is.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm

I haven't seen him trying to impose anything. He is engaging in a debate on a forum that is basically set up for that purpose.

But by your definition damn near everything is considered a "religion". Capitalism is a religion, so is socialism, so is anarchy, so is "my favorite color is blue". Gun rights are a "religion" along with freedom of speech because most of us here try to impose them on other people. The list is endless. Damn, I should be getting all kinds of tax breaks if all that is a religion, maybe you are on to something here.

PS: I pretty much completely disagree with him.

 

[monovillage]

I haven't seen him trying to impose anything. He is engaging in a debate on a forum that is basically set up for that purpose.

But by your definition damn near everything is considered a "religion". Capitalism is a religion, so is socialism, so is anarchy, so is "my favorite color is blue". Gun rights are a "religion" along with freedom of speech because most of us here try to impose them on other people. The list is endless. Damn, I should be getting all kinds of tax breaks if all that is a religion, maybe you are on to something here.

PS: I pretty much completely disagree with him.

He has posted his support for gun controls laws and regulations. If people don't know he's not a citizen or even living in the U.S., but still posting about U.S. laws and incidents (such as this thread) they give his position more credence.

If you believe in them fervently enough and with enough passion, then they are, again it's my opinion. I'm kind of religious myself about paying higher taxes.