NRA - a terrorist organisation

Duck and cover
User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: NRA - a terrorist organisation

Postby xouper » Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:35 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:You are again making the mistake of applying scientific principles to a philosophical position. It is not valid to do that.

of course it is valid

No it's not.

ElectricMonk wrote:- or are you saying that I have no right to do so? :lol:

No, I am not saying that at all. You have the right say wrong things.

ElectricMonk wrote: if you put philosophy beyond the scope of science, then your position is by definition supernatural.

That's the second most stoopidest thing I've heard all week. :lol:

Seriously??

Logic and epistemology, for example, are both branches of philosophy and both are very clearly beyond the scope of science (and empiricism) and they are both very clearly NOT supernatural. What kind of BS are you trying to pull here??

ElectricMonk wrote:I do not object to moral rights on philosophical grounds, but on empirical ones.

It is not valid to apply empiricism to a philosophical position.

ElectricMonk wrote:... mine being scientific and yours being essentially theistic.

Stop lying about my position being theistic. It is not.

Sorry, but your position is not scientific and mine is not theistic. They are both philosophical.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: NRA - a terrorist organisation

Postby xouper » Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:35 am

ElectricMonk wrote:... The question is: does my purely internal decision to align myself with a philosophical or political belief, even in principle, conflict with other people's actions in any measurable way? Does my mere thought (without action) possibly infringe on other's actions?

In the absence of the need to regulate conflict, no rights are necessary to explain a function. To say that "I have a right to be a conservative in the privacy of my head" is a wholly unnecessary statement - your mind can not directly infringe on other's rights, only your actions can. Your thoughts are not limited by the thoughts of others you have not been made aware of.

It is not just a question of whether my thoughts or opinions infringe on someone else. It is also a question of other people's actions infringing on my right to have an opinion.

Your comment in yellow is false. It is indeed worth saying. I guess you never heard the phrase, "you have the right to your opinion?" Apparently you do not believe that.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3283
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: NRA - a terrorist organisation

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:57 am

An opinion unexpressed is no opinion in any meaningful way. Hence, it can not be infringed upon or infringe others. When we fear that our right to an opinion is being infringed, what we actually mean is that our right to express our opinion is being infringed.

Logic is not outside the scope of science: we can clearly demonstrate faulty logic. Logic is a mathematical discipline, after all. And at the core, Logic is just a thinking and organizing tool - it does not have a physical reality. But its usefulness can be objectively tested. Hence, it's scientific.
And everything that you claim can not (not even in principle) be proved or disproved scientifically is by definition supernatural - it might also be philosophical, but that is incidental to the statement.

You stated again and again that Moral Rights exit even without any laws or lawgivers, that they are a necessary property of being human. If you are willing to have this statement undergo empirical testing, it becomes a scientific one and may or may not be disproved. If you say that the statement should not and can not be subject to empirical testing it becomes a theistic statement. (as is the case fro most philosophical statements)

There is natural and supernatural - we don't have 'philosophical' as a valid 3rd category in this matter.

Don't get me wrong: philosophical concepts are incredibly useful, and often invaluable thinking tools. But if you take them to be anything else except as a way to see the world and start taking their statements literally, you are engaged in a supernatural belief.
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
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: NRA - a terrorist organisation

Postby Scott Mayers » Tue Jan 12, 2016 12:32 pm

TJrandom wrote:The NRA is a terrorist organization, and needs to be treated as such. It is time for the Justice Department to take action – sweep in, box up the evidence, make the arrests, procecute the terrorists, and see that they serve jail time.

NRA tweets image with bullets next to pictures of Brooklyn lawmakers who announced state ammo limit bill

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2484861


I understand your concern. I also agree with free speech and that it should reign over censorship to what some may consider 'hate speech, though. But your opinion to reflectively speak of the NRA as a terrorist group too is then as valid which seems to be missed.

xouper wrote:Sorry, but exercising free speech — especially political speech — does not make one a "terrorist" under any interpretation of US law. There is no prosecutable crime here. Nice try at spin doctoring.

Again, I agree here too but the 'spin' is functionally not so clear considering what I posted above with the comment of a similar discussion elsewhere. I pointed out that while the NRA has valid concerns, the way the present themselves is, as you have mentioned later, in a form of advocacy. It is too strict of an advocacy though and with too much power when the details of their motives are being misrepresented. That is, the NRA acts with an extreme position that advocates with NO allowances for the slightest changes in law to control gun ownership. The arguments can also be valid on the surface if they were to remain consistent without hypocrisy. For instance, they only go as far as concerning themselves with protecting gun ownership of their member's specific interests. They might argue reasonably, perhaps, that to preserve one's right to safety in a hostile world, we should ALL own (more) guns. That is, if everyone owned a gun, they argue, we'd all be equally as powerful to defend (as to violate) and act as a deterrent.

Yet, this can only be non-hypocritical if they were to then propose legislation that assures each and every person a REAL genetic right to have a gun and with equal force of the least powerful owners. First of all, they do NOT favor this in truth though as they don't act with such equal zeal to fight for this concern. It is like the extreme feminist (or masculinist) who only acts to advocate in a way that doesn't actually seek 'equality' for all, but only to raise their own power by dis-empowering the other extreme. It's hypocritical because the extremes do not actually fight for equality for all but only for their own interests.

TJrandom wrote:http://www.mrctv.org/blog/


(How was that for spin?)

This link does not exist for me. Maybe it was retracted or is blocked from my location.

xouper wrote:What is (or is not ) "more extreme positions" or "common sense reality" in this case is a matter of opinion, not an objective fact.

Just because you disagree with my position on magazine size, background checks, or the misnamed "gun show loophole", does not mean my position is "more extreme" or is not "common sense". It merely means you disagree.

I assume it goes without saying, especially on a forum for critical thinking, that merely labeling something "extreme" or "not common sense" is not a valid rebuttal, it is merely a statement of opinion.

I think it is 'extreme' in that it advocates without concern, like a prosecutor or lawyer doing whatever it takes to simply WIN rather than negotiate. This topic rightfully should be negotiated with sincerity as an arbitration when considering which laws are better suited to create or remove. Advocacy, while useful, often gets abused in practice. But what ends up happening is that the extreme polar views tend to take front stage regardless of the sincere representation of the actual population each 'side' is supporting. They tend to steal the power away from the real middle position as they treat them as fence-sitters, something that we, even, as skeptics often find ourselves defending unnecessarily when, as an "atheist", the religious believer cannot interpret such as a meaning "one who is absent of belief in a deity" but rather as "one who affirms the wisdom to 'know' there is no God".
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: NRA - a terrorist organisation

Postby Scott Mayers » Tue Jan 12, 2016 12:49 pm

xouper wrote:The majority opinion does not count when it comes to infringing civil liberties. The Bill of Rights was specifically written to prevent the tyranny of the majority from infringing the rights of the minority.


I happen to agree with this right completely as we seem to go overboard in the opposite direction here in Canada. However, this very wording is also used by some of the 'liberal' side to defend their justification to censor what they interpret as "hate speech". And in this way, this is also the reason for TJ's response. The difference is to which things get interpreted as "infringing" upon one's civil liberties.

Personally, I favor the right to speak freely as long as one who does so takes accountability to defend it. And in the OP, if it is true that bullets were purposely placed along side images of those against some view in an apparently threatening way, while it can be defensible, the particular person or person's responsible for it should be required to be both non-anonymous and responsive to expand on such communication. The way some of the rhetoric being used is purposefully done to defeat such accountability makes it impossible to determine one way or the other of sincere intent. But this very intellectual neglect also proves they ARE being deceptive and intending harm when they have demonstrated their own capacity to BE selectively intellectual and powerful in their lobby. You can't demonstrate that you are highly capable of professional stunt driving, for instance, but then also represent oneself as an innocently neglectful if you keep causing accidents in practice.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7623
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: NRA - a terrorist organisation

Postby TJrandom » Tue Jan 12, 2016 7:02 pm


User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: NRA - a terrorist organisation

Postby Scott Mayers » Fri Jan 15, 2016 2:10 pm

After reading that, TJ, I'm not so certain I would support that rhetoric.

If, as Pres. Obama has repeatedly claimed, climate change is a greater threat than terrorism, then aren’t people who deny the climate threat “a danger to themselves or others” and unfit to own guns?


If climate change is 'greater' than terrorism, one might simply diminish the significance of terrorism itself. While I agree with Obama on that issue, it is still a normal behavior, even if it is still socially an 'illness' by the masses. It is just another kind of Bystander Effect.

Just as with guns and the NRA, they have other justifications that are just not so openly acceptable to speak aloud. Thus, the "deniers" as with the gun lobby, indirectly attack the issue and why it often comes across more overtly 'irrational' on the surface. For climate concerns, the real concern is whether WE today should feel compassion for our progeny. If you are religious, you might think that some god will step in and 'fix' whatever we might do to the Earth. For the non-religious, you might think that to concern oneself with the future well-being is rather 'religious' akin to the Communist ideal of sacrificing those of today for the sake of an ideal that nature itself may overturn. Also, if you don't have kids (or don't care for them :P ), you might even care less no matter who you are.

Guns are about the issue of those discontent with their present paranoia of society when the economy is not doing so well for others. The 'fear(s)' are what needs to be unconcealed. I personally believe the particular people who most fear their guns being taken away are those in above average fortunes fearing the masses will elect governments that will tax their bottom line that eats into their wealth and ownership, especially of real estate.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7623
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: NRA - a terrorist organisation

Postby TJrandom » Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:51 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:After reading that, TJ, I'm not so certain I would support that rhetoric.

If, as Pres. Obama has repeatedly claimed, climate change is a greater threat than terrorism, then aren’t people who deny the climate threat “a danger to themselves or others” and unfit to own guns?


If climate change is 'greater' than terrorism, one might simply diminish the significance of terrorism itself. While I agree with Obama on that issue, it is still a normal behavior, even if it is still socially an 'illness' by the masses. It is just another kind of Bystander Effect.

Just as with guns and the NRA, they have other justifications that are just not so openly acceptable to speak aloud. Thus, the "deniers" as with the gun lobby, indirectly attack the issue and why it often comes across more overtly 'irrational' on the surface. For climate concerns, the real concern is whether WE today should feel compassion for our progeny. If you are religious, you might think that some god will step in and 'fix' whatever we might do to the Earth. For the non-religious, you might think that to concern oneself with the future well-being is rather 'religious' akin to the Communist ideal of sacrificing those of today for the sake of an ideal that nature itself may overturn. Also, if you don't have kids (or don't care for them :P ), you might even care less no matter who you are.

Guns are about the issue of those discontent with their present paranoia of society when the economy is not doing so well for others. The 'fear(s)' are what needs to be unconcealed. I personally believe the particular people who most fear their guns being taken away are those in above average fortunes fearing the masses will elect governments that will tax their bottom line that eats into their wealth and ownership, especially of real estate.


Scott, I agree with you. You may have missed that my post was intended as `spin` - a tactic I learned from Xoup. ;)

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12401
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: NRA - a terrorist organisation

Postby JO 753 » Sun Jan 17, 2016 10:44 pm

The NRA iz responsibl for many timez more deths and injuryz than all the terrorist organizationz combined.

The fact that they accomplished this in the name uv profit or thru stoopidity duznt reliev them uv responsibilty.

I think the OP duznt go far enuf.

5 minit warning, then a Tomahawk missle rite thru the front door uv their HQ.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: NRA - a terrorist organisation

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Jan 17, 2016 11:14 pm

JO 753 wrote:The NRA iz responsibl for many timez more deths and injuryz than all the terrorist organizationz combined.

The fact that they accomplished this in the name uv profit or thru stoopidity duznt reliev them uv responsibilty.

I think the OP duznt go far enuf.

5 minit warning, then a Tomahawk missle rite thru the front door uv their HQ.

That's the thing...I think they are likely rational and only intentionally appearing not so because of the 'hidden' motives that, while they could have potential justification, it would make many turn away from them as it reveals something we as humans generally find too loathsome or self-destructive.

It would be like a politician who openly admits of a social taboo, like being gay, or being atheist, who risk the fire at their true philosophical ideals by the support they need that they'd rather not be judged on. The same goes with those 'against' the concept of global warming. They may actually 'agree' too the science as at least potentially reasonable but if their personal investments are tied up in things that risk their ability to profit, the threats are enough to make them stand strongly against it in practice.

The gun lobby is an indirect fight to conserve the right to maintain real estate interests, I believe. Rural areas, especially, feel threatened by the means of the larger urban populations who believe it justified to increase taxes on things like land. When the economy in general turns bad, especially, the urban majority threatens the rural norms to have exclusive rights to their property capital. Guns rights evolve out of the fear of them as a type of minority to have their properties co-opted from them for the sake of others welfare at their expense.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest