Split from: Male/female brains

Duck and cover
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 19, 2015 7:41 pm

Xouper

Your last response to me was a serious misreading of what I was trying to say.

The powers that be certainly determine what rights and laws exist. Their determination may be for the good of the people, or not. For example, if Dubya decides to invade Iraq, is that for the good of the people? Rather obviously not!

In the same way, the powers that be in the USA decided to create the second amendment to ensure that armed citizens militias were available as 'cannon fodder' if and when needed. Was that for the good of the people? No. The only use those militias were put to was a stupid invasion of Canada which brought disaster upon the USA (the 1812 war).

What has happened in relation to the second amendment since has been even more stupid. Under the financial pressure of the gun makers, successive 'powers that be' have reinforced the second amendment and twisted its meaning. This has resulted in 8000 hand gun murders each year, 12000 hand gun suicides each year, and 90,000 people being wounded by bullets each year. Not smart!

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Dec 19, 2015 8:00 pm

If there are exceptions to the laws being derived from morals, then your statement that laws must be based on morals is wrong. So my earlier point that laws and morals do not necessarily depend on one another stands.

xouper wrote:There are of course exceptions, but in general, laws are a reflection of society's sense of right and wrong. That is not to say that all of a society's morals are codified into law.


you admit to exceptions, so your argument that laws still depend on morals, even if they don't, is seriously lacking in logic. What exactly is the moral basis of most traffic laws?

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:You do have to separate your legal and moral positions: your morals are determined by your origin of birth, how you were raised, what you learned - they are extremely personal.
Your legal rights are determined by your residence, not your opinions: they are entirely impersonal.

Assume you have a metal handicap or simply zero interest in philosophy and never bothered to ever think about morals. Or you come from a culture with very different morals than the ones used by the society you live in - in either case, your personal morals (or lack of) are different from and do not in the least affect the laws of the land.

Since you live in a place with morals you share, it so happens that your moral and legal position align - but that is due to your sedentary lifestyle, not some Law of Morality.

None of that is in any way relevant to my position. You are arguing against a claim I have not made.


So what is your position? Because so far, all you said is that Morals = Rights = Laws.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 19, 2015 9:40 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

Your last response to me was a serious misreading of what I was trying to say.

Then please clarify:

It appears you are saying that the Second Amendment is wrong to acknowledge the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Have I stated your position correctly?

If so, then on what authority are you entitled to make that judgment?

Who gave you the right to decide which laws are wrong?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 19, 2015 9:56 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:If there are exceptions to the laws being derived from morals, then your statement that laws must be based on morals is wrong.

Except I never made that statement.

ElectricMonk wrote:So what is your position? Because so far, all you said is that Morals = Rights = Laws.

Nope. That is not what I said.

Since you have demonstrated a clear inability to understand what I say, I have to question why I should bother wasting any more of my time explaining something that you will probably not understand anyway.

You claim I am wrong, but your arguments are so badly muddled and flawed, it becomes a massive undertaking to explain why. I don't have that much spare time to waste here. Sorry.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 19, 2015 10:48 pm

Xouper

I Am suggesting that the second amendment is wrong. But I do not claim any authority. Rather obviously, I am not one of the 'powers that be' in the USA.

MY basis for saying it is wrong is simply the realisation that it does great harm to the people. I have pointed out why, and the numbers of hand gun murders and suicides make this very clear. Allowing unfettered gun ownership kills people by the thousands. If the USA were to rescind the second amendment (they probably will not any time soon, due to gullibility - believing what the gun makers say.) then thousands upon thousands of live would be saved in the long run. I know this because the peer nations of the USA, which do not have that idiotic second amendment, have a quarter to a fifth of the gun toll.

As far as I am concerned in person, my comments in this thread are based on simple common sense and logic and a vast body of data showing the terrible toll all those guns enact.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 20, 2015 1:08 am

I woke up this morning thinking: "If its people with guns that kill people, then why not ban people with guns?" ............ I know............... because they drive cars.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sun Dec 20, 2015 5:50 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

I Am suggesting that the second amendment is wrong.

Thank you for confirming that I had stated your position correctly.

Lance Kennedy wrote: But I do not claim any authority.

Perhaps I used the wrong word. Why do you feel you are entitled to make the moral judgment that the Second Amendment is wrong?

Lance Kennedy wrote: MY basis for saying it is wrong is simply the realisation that it does great harm to the people.

You have already explained your opinion what  you think is wrong about the law, but you have not yet explained why  you feel entitled to make that moral judgment. Who gave you the right to criticize the Second Amendment?

Lance Kennedy wrote: As far as I am concerned in person, my comments in this thread are based on simple common sense and logic and a vast body of data showing the terrible toll all those guns enact.

As far as I am concerned, your arguments are flawed and contradicted by simple common sense and logic and a vast body of data showing that guns are not the cause of the problem.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:03 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:If its people with guns that kill people, then why not ban people with guns?

Perhaps you intended that to be a clever, sarcastic question, but I am going to answer it anyway.

The reason we don't ban all "people with guns" is because only a small percentage of "people with guns" use the gun illegally.

I had assumed that went without saying, but perhaps I assumed incorrectly.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:50 am

So xoup, what is your position?

Because all I hear is: morals = rights = laws
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Dec 20, 2015 5:38 pm

Xouper asked me why I felt entitled to criticise the second amendment. I am struggling here not to come up with a smart aleck, and totally insulting comment.

Has Xouper never heard of freedom of speech?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:31 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper asked me why I felt entitled to criticise the second amendment. I am struggling here not to come up with a smart aleck, and totally insulting comment.

Has Xouper never heard of freedom of speech?

I agree that you have free speech. That was not the nature of my question.

I am asking you to explain WHY you feel you have the moral authority to pass judgment on a particular law, a position that is in direct contradiction with your other claim that individuals do not have the authority to say what rights the people have.

Merely saying you have the right to free speech does not explain WHY you feel you have the moral justification for deciding which rights the people should have (or not have).

Here is the question (that I posted previously) that I am trying to get you to answer, which you have been conveniently avoiding all this time:

1. Either the law decides what your rights are and you have no basis for saying they are wrong.

2. Or, you  decide what your rights are.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

For example: When you say the law (the Second Amendment) is wrong, you are in fact claiming that YOU have a higher authority than the law to decide what rights the people should have (or not have). But that contradicts your other claim that only the law gets to say what rights the people have.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:39 pm

Xouper

I had already answered that one.

It is about common sense and good data. It is very simple. Guns are designed to kill. Nations with more guns have more murders. The USA is an extreme case. It has vastly more guns than any of its peer group, and vastly more murders. The ONLY reason you, or anyone else, argues this point is because there is big money behind the contrary position.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:19 pm

I, for one, would say that the 2nd Amendment is ok the way it is, it is just interpreted wrongly. Justice John Paul Stevens said in Columbia vs. Heller that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only.
The idea the 2nd Amendment grants individual gun rights is IMO a gross misreading of the constitution.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:25 pm

xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:If its people with guns that kill people, then why not ban people with guns?

Perhaps you intended that to be a clever, sarcastic question, but I am going to answer it anyway.

The reason we don't ban all "people with guns" is because only a small percentage of "people with guns" use the gun illegally.

I had assumed that went without saying, but perhaps I assumed incorrectly.

Xouper--your response is Cherry picking without a pickup truck. I'm not being sarcastic but rather exercising my moral authority of personal sovereignty which is violated by the Supreme Court that has outlawed people with Nuclear Bombs. There are NO people with Nuclear Bombs compared to People with Guns. Why? Because they are illegal. Same thing should be the case with Gun Nuts with Guns.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:32 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

I had already answered that one.

No you haven't. You explained WHAT you think is wrong with the Second Amendment, but you have not explained WHY you have any moral authority for making that criticism.

You have made two claims that contradict each other.

1. You have claimed the law decides what rights the people have or do not have.

2. You have claimed that people should not have the rights allowed by the law (specifically the Second Amendment).

You can't have it both ways.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:32 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:If its people with guns that kill people, then why not ban people with guns?

Perhaps you intended that to be a clever, sarcastic question, but I am going to answer it anyway.

The reason we don't ban all "people with guns" is because only a small percentage of "people with guns" use the gun illegally.

I had assumed that went without saying, but perhaps I assumed incorrectly.

Xouper--your response is Cherry picking without a pickup truck. I'm not being sarcastic but rather exercising my moral authority of personal sovereignty which is violated by the Supreme Court that has outlawed people with Nuclear Bombs. There are NO people with Nuclear Bombs compared to People with Guns. Why? Because they are illegal. Same thing should be the case with Gun Nuts with Guns.


:roll: :roll: :roll:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:34 pm

xouper wrote:1. Either the law decides what your rights are and you have no basis for saying they are wrong.

2. Or, you decide what your rights are.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Ummmm..... I think I see the problem here. Lance is using his brain to think with while Xouper is using his as a door stop, or perhaps as a salad chef. A question of nuance?

The law decides what your rights ARE, free speech and the ability to think rationally and to have empathy with the victims of Gun Violence allows you to change the law to protect what other rights you have (Life...liberty ... pursuit of happiness none present when you are dead).

Its called living in a democracy with a Supreme Court that decides what everyone's rights are with reference to the Constitution. Everything subject to debate and change as the society demands.

The only fly in the ointment?===People. Too many don't care what the consequences of their claim to personal sovereignty results in. No Balance at all.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:35 pm

Xouper, you keep up asking others to clarify their position.

Now I'm asking you do to the same, and you refuse.

You obviously do not act in good faith here, not giving others the courtesy offered to you.
Last edited by ElectricMonk on Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:35 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:I, for one, would say that the 2nd Amendment is ok the way it is, it is just interpreted wrongly. Justice John Paul Stevens said in Columbia vs. Heller that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only.
The idea the 2nd Amendment grants individual gun rights is IMO a gross misreading of the constitution.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, your interpretation.

However, the historical and legal evidence is overwhelmingly against your interpretation.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:36 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:Xouper, you keep up asking others to clarify their position.

Now I'm asking you do to the same, and you refuse.

OK, I'll try again, but not right this minute.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:43 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote:1. Either the law decides what your rights are and you have no basis for saying they are wrong.

2. Or, you decide what your rights are.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Ummmm..... I think I see the problem here. Lance is using his brain to think with while Xouper is using his as a door stop, or perhaps as a salad chef. A question of nuance?

That insult is uncalled for.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The law decides what your rights ARE, free speech and the ability to think rationally and to have empathy with the victims of Gun Violence allows you to change the law to protect what other rights you have (Life...liberty ... pursuit of happiness none present when you are dead).

That is the crux of the problem. If there are no rights other than those defined by law, then what rights are you claiming are not being protected by the law?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:45 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

... The ONLY reason you, or anyone else, argues this point is because there is big money behind the contrary position.

BS.

Lance, stop lying about my motivations here. WTF is the matter with you?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:48 pm

The Supremes issue decisions that are MOSTLY misread by the advocates on both sides. As they haven't done the work of either side, its mostly CONGRESS that has made gun access too available. Nothing prevents a Gun Tax, or a Gun Insurance, or Gun Licensing, or Gun Safety that would have a direct effect of lessening their availability to levels near zero.

but too many people are caught up in the illusionary value of ownership: Gun Nuts.

So....EM... you are in fact right that the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted wrongly, and while the Supremes could have been more helpful in pointing out the path to attack current gun proliferation in the GOUSA, its mostly We the People ((Congress!)) and our Gun Crazy Culture that is to blame.

It will change eventually. but it will take time, and many more deaths to develop the political will to select Supremes to reinterpret the Constitution in any number of ways obviously available. You know obvious: what the Gun Nuts deny.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:55 pm

xouper wrote:That is the crux of the problem. If there are no rights other than those defined by law, then what rights are you claiming are not being protected by the law?

Using your brain as a door stop is demonstrated above. Xouper.... you've been told repeatedly that Gun Rights are not absolute. You deny that without argument. Just a door stop to dealing with the negative consequences of your position. The rights protected are listed right after the statement made. but you refuse to see or deal with them: The right to LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.............can't do that when you are dead. Society itself is injured, the whole point of laws.... to strike the balance among all competing interests. All rights are balanced off as to benefits and harm with all the other rights. I think this is affirmed in every Gun Rights case the Supremes have ever issues because that is the actual job of the Supremes. A simple total ban or a total right to use is simple to author. But thats not what the Supremes do.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10249
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby Pyrrho » Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:57 pm

Warning issued for repeated personal attacks.

Level 4
Repeated, off-topic personal attacks that continue beyond a single page in a given topic.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:39 am

Xouper

Your demand for me to state my basis for 'moral authority' is weird. If I were to post something saying I opposed the way ISIS used decapitations, you would not question my 'moral authority'. I am stating my opposition to something that kills an awful lot more people than ISIS decapitations do.

On my statement about big money. That was not directed at you in person, but at all the pro-gun arguments by all the gun enthusiasts across the USA. At root, the use of guns against humans is bad, and more guns lead to more homicides, and more suicides. Yet the big money given by the gun makers is used to pay organisations to come up with rationalisations. This is exactly what happened with Big Tobacco, which used its big money to rationalise its way around its problems.

Money gives power, and the big money that the gun makers have gives them the power to spread propaganda, and spread lies. This has happened, and the pro-gun arguers faithfully parrot off what the gun makers want them to say, false though it is.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:02 am

Here's a quick read on why liberal attempts to restrict guns has failed: http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgol ... 936/page/1

Making a contrasting analogy to restrictions on cigarette smoking, the author asserts that unlike cigarettes, people want guns...... as a defense against terrorist attacks I think. My mind does tend to fog over. but it seems to me that eventually guns and cigarettes will work out the same: Education and the Facts of the Matter will with time and other cultural influences convince people they are in fact healthier/safer without cigarettes or guns.

I do wonder what paper thin made up analyses like this are worth?? But they didn't go crater deep into personal sovereignty, and thats a good thing.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Mon Dec 21, 2015 3:06 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

Your demand for me to state my basis for 'moral authority' is weird.

I will try to explain my intention one more time.

I am asking you to explain the contradiction in your claims:

1. You claim that no right exists unless the law says so.

2. You claim you have the right to decide there are certain rights the people should have (or not have), regardless what the law says.

Those two claims contradict each other.

The law does not say you have the right you claim in #2. Then where did it come from?

That is my question, which you kept avoiding, despite that I tried to ask it in several other ways.

It is obvious now you do not intend to answer that question, so I withdraw my attempt to get you to explain your contradictions, and simply state unequivocally that your position is blatantly self contradictory.

Lance Kennedy wrote:If I were to post something saying I opposed the way ISIS used decapitations, you would not question my 'moral authority'.

Correct. I do not question your moral authority to claim that people have certain rights, regardless if the law says otherwise. I agree with you on that point. I am simply pointing out that when you do that, you contradict claim #1 above.

When you claim you have that moral authority (the right to pass judgment), you are in fact claiming that the law cannot take that right away from you. And in doing that, you contradict your other claim (#1) that you do not have any rights unless the laws says so. But the law does not say you have any right to pass judgment on other people's rights, and thus you need to explain explicitly where that right came from.

Referring back to the numbered claims above, I am not saying #2 is wrong, I am saying #1 is wrong.

I agree entirely with #2, especially since I make the same exact claim myself. But then to be consistent, the claim in #1 must be false. You cannot have it both ways.

Lance Kennedy wrote:On my statement about big money. That was not directed at you in person, but at all the pro-gun arguments by all the gun enthusiasts across the USA.

Where is your evidence that all those gun enthusiasts are arguing for guns because Big Gun says so? There is none. Most advocates of the Second Amendment are motivated by their personal ideologies, not by what the gun manufacturers say. I reject your claim as totally baseless.

Lance Kennedy wrote:At root, the use of guns against humans is bad,

When used in violation of the law, I agree. When used in self defense, it is not bad. The same can be said of drunk drivers. When cars are used in violation of the law, that is bad. But most people do not use cars in violation of the law. Likewise, most gun owners do not use their guns in violation of the law.

Lance Kennedy wrote:and more guns lead to more homicides, ...

You keep making that unproven claim, and I will keep pointing out that there is much evidence that contradicts your claim.

Lance Kennedy wrote:... and more suicides.

I agree the problem of suicides is serious and worth considerable effort to solve. I do not agree that the solution is to take guns away from responsible law abiding citizens. Find some other way to solve it without punishing everyone else.

Lance Kennedy wrote: Yet the big money given by the gun makers is used to pay organisations to come up with rationalisations. This is exactly what happened with Big Tobacco, which used its big money to rationalise its way around its problems.

That is not a valid comparison. Most gun advocates hold their position for deep ideological reasons, not because Big Gun tells them what to believe.

Lance Kennedy wrote:... the big money that the gun makers have gives them the power to spread propaganda, and spread lies. This has happened, and the pro-gun arguers faithfully parrot off what the gun makers want them to say, false though it is.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

That is blatantly false, especially the part in yellow. I am one of those advocates for the Second Amendment, and your accusation that I "parrot" so-called "gun propaganda" is way off base. Shame on you Lance.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Dec 21, 2015 4:16 pm

not sure if this is your standpoint, because all I can see is your criticizing others, not really contributing anything of your own.

xouper wrote:I will try to explain my intention one more time.

I am asking you to explain the contradiction in your claims:

1. You claim that no right exists unless the law says so.

2. You claim you have the right to decide there are certain rights the people should have (or not have), regardless what the law says.

Those two claims contradict each other.


xouper, no one claims any of the things you insinuate: we are talking about completely different issues, which is something that is obvious to anyone but you.

your two points can be addressed as:
1. I have no right to a luxury sorts car, unless I fulfill the legal prerequisites necessary
- but -
2. No one can stop me from dreaming about having a luxury sports car, and I dream of a time when everyone in the world will have a luxury sports car, even if they can't afford it

Does that sound contradictory to you? If yes, please have your logic circuits checked.

Don't think you have any moral high-ground because you stand for greater personal rights - the kind of rights we want are not the issue here, not in the least.

The question is only: what actual, legally enforceable rights do we have?

You keep on mixing them wishful thinking that what you consider morally right automatically provides some degree of legalistic right - which is just not the case.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Mon Dec 21, 2015 5:32 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:not sure if this is your standpoint, because all I can see is your criticizing others, not really contributing anything of your own.

Wrong.

I have stated, more than once, my position that as a sentient human capable of informed moral judgments, I have the inherent right to self ownership. If that is not a contribution to the conversation, then nothing is.

Secondly, this is a skeptic forum where it is expected that ideas and claims can be criticized without also contributing anything of your own.

Your objection fails on both points.

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:I will try to explain my intention one more time.

I am asking you to explain the contradiction in your claims:

1. You claim that no right exists unless the law says so.

2. You claim you have the right to decide there are certain rights the people should have (or not have), regardless what the law says.

Those two claims contradict each other.

xouper, no one claims any of the things you insinuate:

Lance has indeed made both of those claims.

ElectricMonk wrote:we are talking about completely different issues,

Please explain what you mean by that. Please restate both #1 and #2 to reflect your claims.

ElectricMonk wrote:your two points can be addressed as:
1. I have no right to a luxury sorts car, unless I fulfill the legal prerequisites necessary
- but -
2. No one can stop me from dreaming about having a luxury sports car, and I dream of a time when everyone in the world will have a luxury sports car, even if they can't afford it

Sorry, that is a very bad misinterpretation of what I said.

ElectricMonk wrote:Does that sound contradictory to you? If yes, please have your logic circuits checked.

I find it amusing that you think my logic is faulty when your own arguments are filled with logical fallacies and cognitive errors. I will gladly challenge you to a moderated contest of logic and I will win by a landslide. I have done such a thing before and believe me, you are no match.

ElectricMonk wrote:Don't think you have any moral high-ground because you stand for greater personal rights - the kind of rights we want are not the issue here, not in the least.

Non sequitur.

ElectricMonk wrote:The question is only: what actual, legally enforceable rights do we have?

No, that is not the only question here. I am allowed to ask any questions I like.

Just because a right is not always legally enforceable does not mean you do not have that right.

Are you claiming otherwise?

Are you seriously claiming that if you cannot enforce your right to keep ISIS from beheading you, then you do not have the right to keep your head? Lance seems to think you are allowed to claim the right to your head, even if you cannot prevent ISIS from violating your right.

ElectricMonk wrote:You keep on mixing them wishful thinking that what you consider morally right automatically provides some degree of legalistic right - which is just not the case.

I have never made that claim. Once again you reveal your lack of reading comprehension.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Dec 21, 2015 5:40 pm

As I said again, again, AGAIN and AGAIN,

it's irrelevant what rights I think I have or ought to have if they are not the rights of the place I'm in.
I never said that I did not want such a right, only that wishing them doesn't make them real.

I'm sure homosexuals would like the right not to be pushed off roofs by ISIS, but that doesn't give them the rights, according both to local laws and morals.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Mon Dec 21, 2015 5:56 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:it's irrelevant what rights I think I have or ought to have if they are not the rights of the place I'm in.

It makes a huge difference.

Example: If you live in a place where the law says you do not own your own liver (that it can be taken from you without your consent at any time for any reason even if it kills you), there are two mutually exclusive responses to that law:

1. You have no moral justification for saying the law is wrong.

2. Or you do.

If you allow that the law can take away your natural rights, then you are arguing for position #1.

If you claim, as I do, that the law might choose to violate my natural rights, but it cannot take them away, then you are arguing for position #2.

It makes a huge moral difference which position you take.

ElectricMonk wrote: I never said that I did not want such a right, only that wishing them doesn't make them real.

Why not?

If you want to claim ownership of your liver, then claim it. The law might violate your right to own your liver, but the law can never take away that right. You might argue there is no practical difference, but as I have shown above, there is a huge moral difference.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Dec 21, 2015 6:08 pm

k, xoup, you made the point that you think you can claim a right against the laws and morals of the society you live in.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Mon Dec 21, 2015 6:59 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:k, xoup, you made the point that you think you can claim a right against the laws and morals of the society you live in.

Yes, that is close to what I meant. To clarify, I am referring only to certain natural rights, not any of the so-called legal rights.

Recall that I said there are (more or less) two kinds of rights, natural and legal.

More than once I have posted this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Regarding legal rights, I agree pretty much with everything you have said about them.

I do not agree that what you have said about rights applies to all natural rights.

Does that help?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Dec 21, 2015 8:13 pm

Xouper

Some of your arguments are increasingly weird.

You suggest that if rights come from the law, I have no right to comment. Duh!

Your proposal number 1 is covered by the fact that the powers that be in today's world give me the right of free speech.
Guess what, genius. That answers your point number 2 also.

I said that using guns against humans is bad, and you answered that is not the case in self defense. Your statement is incomplete. It should be that the use of guns against humans in cases where lethal self defense is the only option becomes OK. The sad fact is that using guns in self defense is rarely essential, but frequently done. I know this because in countries where there are almost no guns in civilian hands do NOT have a problem as a result. If people without guns do not suffer from lack of guns, then the guns are not needed. That is a major flaw in your arguments. Get this straight. Guns are rarely needed. The desire for guns to defend yourself is based almost entirely on illusion.

On gun makers and their money.
There is no secret here. It is a matter of public knowledge how much money the gun makers feed to their minions in the form of "grants". It is also a matter of public knowledge that those minions go public with a range of arguments in favour of unrestricted freedom to own guns. Denying any connection is not smart. Nor do I believe you are unaffected. The fact that the gun makers generate those arguments, and you repeat them back to me is not a coincidence.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Dec 21, 2015 8:22 pm

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:k, xoup, you made the point that you think you can claim a right against the laws and morals of the society you live in.

Yes, that is close to what I meant. To clarify, I am referring only to certain natural rights, not any of the so-called legal rights.


I have no problem with you claiming rights for yourself, as long as you agree that natural rights are a form of belief - something you consider to be true, but for which there is no scientific proof.

Natural rights are the result of making Humanism into a religion: Man as the ultimate being (in contrast to any Gods), endowed with unique rights, due to his 'Man-ness'.

While humanism and natural rights were all the vogue in the 18th century (see the US constitution), they were heavily criticized in the 19th and 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihumanism
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Dec 21, 2015 8:50 pm

Electric monk has it correct. The whole concept of 'natural rights' is religious, based on some kind of faith. Skeptics are skeptical about faith, and I regard the two words, 'faith and gullibility' to be synonyms.

There are no 'natural rights' except inside the heads of people who are religiously superstitious.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:33 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Electric monk has it correct. The whole concept of 'natural rights' is religious, based on some kind of faith.

Wrong.

I have already cited credible sources that say otherwise, that natural rights are completely secular and require no religious faith whatsoever.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:44 pm

Religion: believing in things that objectively are not true.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Mon Dec 21, 2015 10:13 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

Some of your arguments are increasingly weird.

You suggest that if rights come from the law, I have no right to comment. Duh!

Your proposal number 1 is covered by the fact that the powers that be in today's world give me the right of free speech.

According to your argument, you have the right to complain about the law only if the law gives you that right, which many governments do not, and then you are stuck in your original contradiction. That was my point.

Lance Kennedy wrote:I said that using guns against humans is bad, and you answered that is not the case in self defense. Your statement is incomplete. It should be that the use of guns against humans in cases where lethal self defense is the only option becomes OK. The sad fact is that using guns in self defense is rarely essential, but frequently done.

Wrong.

My statement is not incomplete. People have the right to use guns for self defense even if they aren't "needed" and other means might be available.

Lance Kennedy wrote: I know this because in countries where there are almost no guns in civilian hands do NOT have a problem as a result.

Wrong.

I have already pointed out that there is a grass roots movement in Britain to get their guns back because there is a very real problem with not being able to defend against criminal assaults. Britain has a higher violent crime rate than the US. That is a fact.

Lance Kennedy wrote:If people without guns do not suffer from lack of guns, then the guns are not needed. That is a major flaw in your arguments. Get this straight. Guns are rarely needed.

You keep making that flawed argument. "Need" is never a prerequisite for exercising one's civil liberties. It does not matter if one "needs" a gun or not. The laws says people have the right to use a gun for self defense if they choose, without having to justify their choice to you or anyone else.

You can complain until you are blue in the face that no one "needs" a gun, but the fact is, your opinion does not count for anything.

Lance Kennedy wrote: The desire for guns to defend yourself is based almost entirely on illusion.

Wrong.

That is your personal opinion which happens to be contradicted by the evidence, including all the examples I posted in that other thread.

Lance Kennedy wrote:On gun makers and their money.
There is no secret here. It is a matter of public knowledge how much money the gun makers feed to their minions in the form of "grants". It is also a matter of public knowledge that those minions go public with a range of arguments in favour of unrestricted freedom to own guns. Denying any connection is not smart. Nor do I believe you are unaffected. The fact that the gun makers generate those arguments, and you repeat them back to me is not a coincidence.

The gun industry does not tell me what to say. You are very close to crossing the line here, Lance. Please stop making false accusations about my character. How many times do I need to warn you about that?


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest