The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 5501 - 5520 of total 5646 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Apr 9, 2015 - 01:27pm PT
I didn't say you were insane. I said you give reason to insanity. Can't you read? An insane perspective can come from an otherwise lucid person. You're a victim of your own logic, mate.

Care in point...

DMT
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 9, 2015 - 02:40pm PT
Ahh, you're really parsing the verbiage to wiggle around, aren't you?

If I say that you have an a55holish personality, I guess that I'm not actually calling you an a55hole, then, right?

Pretty ticky-tacky "distinction" coming from a guy who can't recognize important distinctions such as positive vs. negative rights.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Apr 9, 2015 - 02:47pm PT
Cheers Pistolero

DMT
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Apr 9, 2015 - 03:17pm PT
MB1,

If it's arguing you want, words, their definition and how they're used in context, matter in the most fundamental way. The silence of lawers in this thread speaks louder than words. They spend a decade on education learning how to say something that has logic beyond emotion.

Your society has allowed soft intellectualism to think that state's rights are superior to federal doctrine and policy as it applies to all Americans in a national federation. Your federation flows from the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

So if an individual is disenfranchised from the federation for whatever reason, are they now a state unto their self while still an obligated citizen ?
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 9, 2015 - 03:51pm PT
If it's arguing you want, words, their definition and how they're used in context, matter in the most fundamental way. The silence of lawers in this thread speaks louder than words. They spend a decade on education learning how to say something that has logic beyond emotion.

Simply not true. Several of my philosophy students have gone on to some of the best law schools in the country, such as UCLA, and have stayed in close touch with me. They have spent years telling me about the VAST difference in training regarding the use of verbiage between philosophy and law. Philosophy is about clarity to seek truth. Law literally teaches word games and sophistry to seek wins. "Debate" is not "argument," and "law" is not "philosophy."

What goes on on these threads is at best (and rarely) "debate" rather than argument; it seldom rises to even that low level. And the degree of verbal clarity here is a function of commonsense expectations. Nobody here wants to be subjected to philosophical rigor; I've tried it on occasion, and the resulting moaning and sniveling is epic.

The supposed silence of lawyers here can be a function of all sorts of things. Couple that with the fact that lawyers, even constitutional ones, are not trained to think about the underlying philosophy of legitimate government, and you have "experts" that are not actually experts and know that they are not. Look at legal debates before the SCOTUS, and you will see how the "legal expert" game is played. It's just lawyering (sophistry) regarding the constitution.

Your society has allowed soft intellectualism

I agree thus far! In fact, this society has encouraged that.

to think that state's rights are superior to federal doctrine and policy as it applies to all Americans in a national federation.

There is so much wrong with that statement that it is beyond the scope of this forum to address it. I'll touch on just a couple of things:

1) Nobody that I'm aware of here is suggesting that states' right trump federal "doctrine and policy" in anything like a sweeping sense. Our polity is much more nuanced than that! Our constitution was written to provide non-overlapping and limited powers for states and the federal government. If both operate within their constitutionally-defined realms, there should be little if any conflict. And from the start, the great fear of federalism (even among the federalists!) was a federal government that over time relentlessly usurped power unto itself.

2) The federal "doctrines and policies" were not supposed to "apply to all Americans" in anything like a direct sense. Our federal government was initially set up to have rare and little direct impact upon individual citizens. That direct impact was to come from the states and local governments. A big problem is that now the feds are DEEPLY nested into every tiny detail of individual lives.

Your federation flows from the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Okay

So if an individual is disenfranchised from the federation for whatever reason, are they now a state unto their self while still an obligated citizen ?

I don't know what you mean by "disenfranchised". Since word-meaning does matter, I can't answer your question without knowing some details about your intentions for that word.

Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Apr 9, 2015 - 04:11pm PT
So now you are a Philosophy Professor after all. There's nothing like clarification to clear the air.

You are right about law not being about philosophy but about winning. That's because the stakes are so high in legal matters. Not many people treat the courts like a cocktail party debate. the cost of being wrong is severe. That's why all democracies have an adversarial system between the individual and the state. Good fences make good neighbours...

The silence of trained legal professionals here is because they spent enough time wading through the arguments of sentimentality in college to give a sh#t here.

As for the disenfranchised, maybe getting thrown in jail for drunk driving equaling losing eligibility to vote is a sore point for people going forward. In their lives, f*#king up at 23 years old and paying the price is emotionally troublesome and federally problematic if tax is expected until death.

That's taxation with removed representation.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 9, 2015 - 07:00pm PT
So now you are a Philosophy Professor after all. There's nothing like clarification to clear the air.

I've never denied that. I've denied being a community college professor.

You are right about law not being about philosophy but about winning. That's because the stakes are so high in legal matters.

You write that like you are providing an explanation. But there is no explanation in it. The stakes are always FAR higher in serious philosophy, with FAR more sweepingly positive or negative effects.

Not many people treat the courts like a cocktail party debate. the cost of being wrong is severe.

Wow. Just wow. If you think that what we're doing on these threads bears the slightest resemblance to serious philosophy. Oh, wow. This thread in particular is much populated by people that can't distinguish between their left and right butt cheeks, much less substantive philosophical distinctions.

And being "wrong" in law has nothing to do with truth or actual wrongness. The cost of LOSING can be severe, but that doesn't hold a candle to being philosophically WRONG, as in utterly wrong-headed nation-building on the basis of WRONG philosophy, such as we have repeatedly seen in quite recent history. Do you really think that legitimate nations are built by guys just jaw-jacking their pre-theoretical opinions at a cocktail party?

That's why all democracies have an adversarial system between the individual and the state. Good fences make good neighbours...

I'm trying to read that with charity, but I honestly cannot grasp what point you might be trying to make.

The silence of trained legal professionals here is because they spent enough time wading through the arguments of sentimentality in college to give a sh#t here.

Again, just wow! And you have a what shred of evidence to sustain that claim?

As for the disenfranchised, maybe getting thrown in jail for drunk driving equaling losing eligibility to vote is a sore point for people going forward. In their lives, f*#king up at 23 years old and paying the price is emotionally troublesome and federally problematic if tax is expected until death. That's taxation with removed representation.

"Emotionally troublesome"? Well, cry me a river!

Sorry, but you'll get no sympathy from me. There are lines you cross that there is no coming back from. The excuse that at 23 you didn't know better or understand the consequences is just a strong argument to say that even 21 year-olds have no business drinking.

The problem is that any age is going to be arbitrary, as maturity rates vary so wildly. The bigger problem is that our society has virtually given up on the idea of personal responsibility and real consequences.

You know, sleep around with every warm body you can, have a bunch of kids, then appeal to society to be "humane" and take care of all the kids you had that you didn't even THINK about how you were going to take care of yourself. The "poor" and "downtrodden" that can only soothe their troubles by breeding! A lot!

Then, of course don't raise those kids yourself with any sense of personal responsibility. Instead, convey to them that there IS no real personal responsibility, and meanwhile sue somebody for nicking yourself while shaving.

And it goes on and on. And generation after generation it gets clearer that NOBODY but "society" is really responsible for anything personal. And government gleefully steps in to TAKE responsibility, because it KNOWS that with that responsibility comes genuine POWER to be into the tiniest details of everybody's lives. And this is precisely what has happened to America during my own lifetime.

So, yeah, you drink and drive, and you are crossing a SERIOUS line! You get caught doing it, and I think that the penalties should be far harsher than they now are!

A couple of my good friends just a few months ago were hit by a drunk driver, and they are now both permanently brain-damaged. The one, the mother, was just forced to resign her job as a middle-school teacher because she can't keep her head straight and teach now. So her entire LIFE is ruined... forever... and the world has lost a great teacher, to have it be replaced by someone that will now be on the public dole: Wonderful productivity converted to someone who needs "society" to step in and take responsibility for the negligent and intentionally irresponsible actions of one person.

And imagine what it's like to have much of your MIND taken from you! You have enough left to be constantly reminded of what you've lost! TRY to imagine that, if you can.

And, what? I'm supposed to wring my hands in sympathy for the "poor drunk driver who made ONE mistake and then is 'disenfranchised' for life'"? What a sick joke! Can you be serious???

If there were ANY justice, that drunk driver would spend many years in prison, then get out and spend the rest of her life devoting a significant chunk of her paycheck to my friend and her daughter. When I say "significant," I mean a percentage, a high enough percentage to HURT every paycheck, so that EVERY day she can be reminded of what she did, just as my friends are EVERY day reminded of all that was taken from them... as if money could even BEGIN to compensate for that loss.

And, by the way, in what country does one drunk driving conviction keep you from voting for the rest of your life? It's not here in the USA. If that WERE one of the consequences, I'd cheer it on. You guys moan about the "epidemic of gun violence," much of which is not ABOUT guns at all but is instead about gangs and the causes of that life-choice. Meanwhile the real carnage is on the streets, and it is virtually 100% preventable. Let society view drunk driving as the utterly heinous, intentionally negligent, and selfish act that it is, and the penalties would soar while the incidence of it would plummet.

Oh, but the problem is that SO many of you hypocrites KNOW that you have often engaged in drunk driving and gotten away with it. So you can't get serious about pointing a finger at that crime (and crime it is). So you bemoan the guns while giving a pass to the criminals that daily and intentionally threaten us on the streets.

Sympathy for the poor drunk drivers? NOT!

As a matter of fact, let's imagine a little FILTER on further discussions here. The only people who get to discuss gun violence any further are those who have NEVER ONCE driven while impaired by drugs or alcohol.

Oh, wow... it suddenly got really quiet around here.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Apr 9, 2015 - 07:06pm PT
And furthermore.....
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Apr 9, 2015 - 07:07pm PT


Wow

Oh Wow. Just wow.

Bow wow wow.

DMT
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Apr 9, 2015 - 07:17pm PT
There is the reality of the state VS. the individual.

The adversarial system is what makes sense because of the overwhelming weight of any state's resources against an individual. Try it some time, you may find philosophy as an avenue of study and seemingly higher consequences, falls short of being effective when sentenced to time in prison.

WBraun

climber
Apr 9, 2015 - 07:36pm PT
Way tooo much talk and not enough GUNS!!!!



crankster

Trad climber
Apr 9, 2015 - 07:40pm PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#405689
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 9, 2015 - 07:41pm PT
Try it some time, you may find philosophy as an avenue of study and seemingly higher consequences, falls short of being effective when sentenced to time in prison.

Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while in prison.

King wrote the "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" while in jail.

Ghandi had tremendous influence from prison and changed a country.

Mandela wrote and changed a country from prison.

And the list goes on and on.

Philosophy transcends prison and can be even more effective when its ideas are stamped by the commitment to them exhibited by one imprisoned for them.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Apr 9, 2015 - 07:42pm PT
Werner...what happen to your schmeizer and spiked helmet...?
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Apr 9, 2015 - 07:48pm PT
All you say is true but it only involves the wrongly convicted based on philosophies that were wrong logically.

I'm OK with Adolph sentenced to life in prison but that wasn't what happened because of the quasi logic of sentimentality and situational ethics.
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Apr 9, 2015 - 07:49pm PT
Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while in prison.

Bill Murray wrote "Mountaineering in Scotland" while in one of Hitler's prison camps.
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Apr 9, 2015 - 08:25pm PT
Richard,

All dogma regarding our collective sacred cows aside, how has your climbing adventures treated you after the early Yosemite dust up ?

madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 9, 2015 - 08:44pm PT
Thank you for asking, Jim. You know, it's been so great my whole life to be a climber. I mean, it's really impossible to articulate the sweepingly positive effects climbing has had on my whole life.

It's all good! From bouldering to free climbing (although my level is much lower now) to aid climbing, it's all a blast. I'm sure that you know what I mean.

And, in general, the climbing community itself is a blast. We might disagree on lots of "dogma," but I have a LOT more respect for climbers in general than for the average person. That's why I like that that taco stand has these "politard" threads, because I like conversing with climbers on basically any topic, including (gasp) climbing. lol

You know, even the passion we bring to climbing affects the passion we bring to discussions, so it's good.

How about you?
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Apr 9, 2015 - 08:55pm PT
Life is about moving with the changes.

Time and the speed that consumes it has become the force in deciding what matters. Skiing and bike riding seem to be the universal default setting for the majority of middle aged guys who have to rationalize time spent VS. value accrued.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 9, 2015 - 09:03pm PT
Time and the speed that consumes it has become the force in deciding what matters.

SO true! And I find that the speed at which time is consumed is ever faster each year.

I'm about to have a birthday, and my wife is all jazzed and wanting to know what we should do on my "special day." LOL

My response: "How about let's just ignore the 'specialness' of it this time?"

Her response: A laugh and then, "No, you're too special to me. I love to celebrate when you came into the world." (Yikes!)

I would just ignore it as yet another day that will live in infamy. But, she is far too good to me and far better than I deserve. I really mean that. So, if it makes her happy to "celebrate" the banana peel under one of my feet getting ever more slippery, I'll happily contribute to her happiness.

And the next one will be upon me even faster. Soon, from my time-compressed perspective, my wife will be in a state of perpetual ecstasy as the "special days" pile up in quick succession.
Messages 5501 - 5520 of total 5646 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews