The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Sommerswerd]

You're gonna drag them here? That was a case of self defense, where is the contradiction?

If you honestly don't see it... no amount of explanation from me is going to make you see it.

You guys are using "god", I said existence bestows these rights on us. I just dont object if you want to use god in place of existence.

Hoboy... I thought we were making progress. You either believe in god or you don't. Jesus H. Christ... If you're now claiming that you don't believe in god then fine, forget it. I'm not playing the game you do in politics in this conversation, its tiresome enough in our political conversations.

Lets clarify who here punishes animals for defending themselves and who here slaps animals. I want names.

I "euthanize" with extreme prejudice

 

[El_Machinae]

Honestly, you should get used to the concept of Spinoza's god. Once you recognise it, you won't mistake it for the Abrahamic gods when people refer to it. This interaction with 'zerk will have been frustrating, but you're going to run into the concept again. I've long-ago learned to use the word 'reality' to capture the same idea (as in "reality has a well-known liberal bias"). We don't say "reality wants there to be no death penalty", because that makes no sense. We just say "if you look at reality, things are better without a death penalty".

It allows people to very easily deconstruct arguments where they insist they know God 'wants'. To the best of my knowledge, the universe seems designed to crush hydrogen into Hawking radiation or have it evaporate under proton decay ... nearly everything else we see seems secondary. So,

 

[Berzerker]

If you honestly don't see it... no amount of explanation from me is going to make you see it.

The jury didn't agree with your narrative, neither did the facts

Hoboy... I thought we were making progress. You either believe in god or you don't. Jesus H. Christ... If you're now claiming that you don't believe in god then fine, forget it. I'm not playing the game you do in politics in this conversation, its tiresome enough in our political conversations.

Agnosticism aint an option? I said existence is the source of our rights and you drag god into it, ask me to defend the religious beliefs of other people, and then accuse me of playing the game. Straw man, insult, and run away. Thats your game.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The jury didn't agree with your narrative, neither did the facts

My narrative? No its your narrative, that's what you don't get. Your narrative has changed to suit the argument you're currently making. I'm sure you're as confident in the not guilty jury verdict reached by the OJ jury BTW... not to mention the fact that juries are a product of law, not "natural" rights.

Agnosticism aint an option? I said existence is the source of our rights

Fine then, back to start it is. Chickens "exist"... why isn't existence the source of their rights?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Straw man, insult, and run away. Thats your game.

Given that you throw pretty much the same accusations at pretty much everyone, it appears to be your game. The old, "no matter where you go, there you are."

 

[TheMeInTeam]

We're not creating them, they're a product of existence. Neither I nor 'society' created your moral claim (right) against us murdering you, if we did, we could murder you...morally. Was it immoral for the Nazis to murder people? If yes, what if they disagreed? Are you wrong or are they wrong? You both cant be right. If rights are created or denied by society, how can the Nazis be wrong?

The universe doesn't care about us or Nazis. Most of the world decided the Nazis were wrong. They disagreed, and fought. Fortunately the Nazis lost, otherwise society's morals would look different in unfortunate ways.

The right is universal because everyone will defend themselves from attackers. Murderers obviously dont respect the right to life of their victims, but murderers will defend themselves from attack too. Murder is an aberration, self defense is universal.

Actually, not everyone defends themselves. Some people will panic and avoid even tasks like "jump towards rescuers so you don't die". These people do not fight back when attacked, some of them don't even flee effectively (if at all). It is a mistake to call self-defense "universal". Evolution selects for it and against murder for obvious reasons, but we still have both.

 

[El_Machinae]

I have no problem with the idea that we're going to kill in self-defense. Because, overall, we do. And we're gonna. Might as well recognize it. The principle of "don't kill in self-defense" is not transmissible. The best you can do is create a society where you're not having to choose to whether to kill others. Even 2A-believing cultures recognize this. "How about we don't brandish? Brandishing is just soooooo similar to an imminent threat that I just CAN'T". Even though, as someone in a non-2A culture, the difference between concealed-carry and a brandish is about, what?, seven seconds? In Canada, I see a concealed carry, I know I can start treating it like a threat immediately. (Amusingly, I'm not legally allowed to treat it like an imminent threat).

It's also interesting how many spiritual codes try to teach "don't kill in self-defense". They ask you to trust the universe to sort out the spiritual consequences. I've seen these people, my childhood church has supported more than one. Honestly, they're a very impressive and noble set of people. It's just not scalable. The religion that doesn't believe in self-defense can only be protected by religions that do, and that interpretation is selected for over time. (Alternatively, a successful transmission of universal peace ... good luck).

Killing in self-defense has some really interesting hypotheticals.

The other day, I was cornered in an alley by ten enemies that were intent on using their pipes and knives to kill me. Apparently, they'd mistaken me for this famous internet poster who'd ruined their friend's truck. Because their cognitive biases prevent me from talking them down, they feel like I've essentially volunteered for what comes next. In a way, we're all innocent. They've no intent to murder me, just murder.

Because I am a giant hypocrite, I have a revolver with me at all times. I brandish and they pause for a second. "Hey, he's got six bullets, and there are ten of us!" one shouts. I sigh. I can kill three hostiles with my bare hands, easypeasy. But not four. Four will kill me. I'm tough, but I'm not actually Tim.

The two moral questions are "may I (or even, should I) shoot him?" and "if they're not capable of being deterred, am I allowed to (or do I have an obligation to) kill six of them?"

It becomes a series of functions. By shooting the first person, I am trying to prevent one murder (me). But I am doing so by killing someone, and trying to create a deterrence effect. If it's guaranteed to work, nearly no one has an issue with it. Some do: see paragraph 2.

Some people think it's not only 'fine' but 'better' if I contribute to net seven deaths by taking as many down, even though none of my killing created my desired outcome (my continued existence). Some people will say that the first shot is questionable, and the second one is super questionable.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you can't escape, kill as many while attempting to survive as possible. Not only is that a reasonable attempt at self-preservation, but it makes future self-preservation efforts by others slightly more effective via deterrent and removes quite a few people who are willing to commit murder.

You're not "obligated" to do anything in this hypothetical. You can do nothing and just get murdered. I don't consider this an ideal response, but if I'm not the victim it's not my call to make. If you manage to survive all 10 you get a "not guilty" vote from me if we can assume the entire story to be factual.

 

[El_Machinae]

Remember, it is a hypothetical. There's no 'really try to live, hoping you do'. The outcomes are as known as the trolley problem.

It's a reasonable response. But imagine the change in zeitgeist if the headline became "Man mistakenly attacked forgoes loaded pistol and allows ten men to kill him".

The feel-good aspect might change the society's morals more significantly than causing six deaths.

"We killed the wrong guy" was pretty effective vs the death penalty.

And why is there no moral obligation either way? There's always a 'should'. WWJD? WWS(uperman)D? Mister Roger's? Steve Rogers?

 

[Lexicus]

It's also interesting how many spiritual codes try to teach "don't kill in self-defense". They ask you to trust the universe to sort out the spiritual consequences.

"It is better to suffer evil than to do it" -Socrates

 

[Berzerker]

My narrative? No its your narrative, that's what you don't get. Your narrative has changed to suit the argument you're currently making. I'm sure you're as confident in the not guilty jury verdict reached by the OJ jury BTW... not to mention the fact that juries are a product of law, not "natural" rights. Fine then, back to start it is. Chickens "exist"... why isn't existence the source of their rights?

OJ was guilty? No way... I'm confident in the facts, not your narrative. If chickens have rights thats between chickens.

Given that you throw pretty much the same accusations at pretty much everyone, it appears to be your game. The old, "no matter where you go, there you are."

So now I pretty much throw the same accusations at pretty much everyone - everyone being you and Sommers of course. That wasn't the game Sommers was accusing me of playing.

The universe doesn't care about us or Nazis. Most of the world decided the Nazis were wrong. They disagreed, and fought. Fortunately the Nazis lost, otherwise society's morals would look different in unfortunate ways.

Actually, not everyone defends themselves. Some people will panic and avoid even tasks like "jump towards rescuers so you don't die". These people do not fight back when attacked, some of them don't even flee effectively (if at all). It is a mistake to call self-defense "universal". Evolution selects for it and against murder for obvious reasons, but we still have both.

Does that mean genocide is moral if it goes unpunished? Fleeing is self defense, dont matter if you're successful or not.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So now I pretty much throw the same accusations at pretty much everyone - everyone being you and Sommers of course. That wasn't the game Sommers was accusing me of playing.

Are you seriously telling yourself that it's only a couple people that think you are a troll? That since it's "just Tim and Sommer" it must be about them and not about your behavior? For reasons of my own I've been trying to make an effort to avoid hating you, and now I'm really curious. Do you really see yourself as being a well liked member of the community that is unfairly targeted by a very select few?

 

[Bugfatty300]

Remember, it is a hypothetical. There's no 'really try to live, hoping you do'. The outcomes are as known as the trolley problem.

It's a reasonable response. But imagine the change in zeitgeist if the headline became "Man mistakenly attacked forgoes loaded pistol and allows ten men to kill him".

The feel-good aspect might change the society's morals more significantly than causing six deaths.

"We killed the wrong guy" was pretty effective vs the death penalty.

And why is there no moral obligation either way? There's always a 'should'. WWJD? WWS(uperman)D? Mister Roger's? Steve Rogers?

But what would Zeus do?

There wouldn't be a headline like that (except as a speculation maybe) because the victim's internal reasoning dies with them. "Man is murdered with a loaded handgun on his belt" is a common enough occurrence in the real world---it's likely that at least some of those cases is a victim choosing not fight back.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But what would Zeus do?

There wouldn't be a headline like that (except as a speculation maybe) because the victim's internal reasoning dies with them. "Man is murdered with a loaded handgun on his belt" is a common enough occurrence in the real world---it's likely that at least some of those cases is a victim choosing not fight back.

Well, if uninvolved bystanders widely agreed that his last words were "hey, wait, you've got the wrong guy" and that his attackers were so slow and deliberate that he definitely had time to use his gun the speculation would be more plausible...but yes, you are correct in the broadest sense.

 

[El_Machinae]

You'd have to tell the people that you were refusing to take their lives because of an error on their part. And then expect the story to come out.

Anyway, the hypothetical creates a division. The ten people 'consented' to their six deaths, because they walked into the alley after being told that they were (a) mistaken and (b) gonna get shot.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You'd have to tell the people that you were refusing to take their lives because of an error on their part. And then expect the story to come out.

Anyway, the hypothetical creates a division. The ten people 'consented' to their six deaths, because they walked into the alley after being told that they were (a) mistaken and (b) gonna get shot.

The real Tim is wondering how you let yourself get cornered in the alley in the first place.

As to the hypothetical situation, if they are armed with pipes and knives and seem intent on murder or mayhem the mistake of identity of victim is hardly disqualifying them from deserving whatever comes their way. Even from a legal standpoint shooting them is easily justifiable. Tell them straight out that you are willing to bet on the rest backing down after the first one eats a bullet, and whichever of them makes the first move is eating more than one so they should choose their sacrifice, then pick one who looks more like a leader than a follower and shoot him, preferably in the guts so he goes down screaming. Odds are good the rest back off, whether they believe they have the wrong guy or not.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Remember, it is a hypothetical. There's no 'really try to live, hoping you do'. The outcomes are as known as the trolley problem.

It's a reasonable response. But imagine the change in zeitgeist if the headline became "Man mistakenly attacked forgoes loaded pistol and allows ten men to kill him".

The feel-good aspect might change the society's morals more significantly than causing six deaths.

"We killed the wrong guy" was pretty effective vs the death penalty.

And why is there no moral obligation either way? There's always a 'should'. WWJD? WWS(uperman)D? Mister Roger's? Steve Rogers?

From WWII to the present 60% of Congressional Medals of Honor are awarded posthumously... so I'd say society, Murican society at least... has spoken on that issue... go out guns blazin'... and to quote two of my favourite movie Captains...

"I don't believe in no-win scenarios" - James T. Kirk
"Never give up, never surrender" - Jason "Peter Quincy Taggart" Nesmith

 

[Berzerker]

Are you seriously telling yourself that it's only a couple people that think you are a troll? That since it's "just Tim and Sommer" it must be about them and not about your behavior? For reasons of my own I've been trying to make an effort to avoid hating you, and now I'm really curious. Do you really see yourself as being a well liked member of the community that is unfairly targeted by a very select few?

I said "Straw man, insult, and run away. Thats your game" to Sommers after he replaced my argument rights come from existence with a bible verse he messed up, insulted me and said he was done. You jumped to the rescue to accuse me of creating straw men, insulting people, and running away. Where are these straw men and insults? You ignored his to attack me with the same accusation. The hypocrisy didn't go unnoticed, now give Sommers his hot cocoa and blanket.

But how did my criticism of Sommers' behavior become my fault? Why am I responsible for how he debates issues? And how did you turn that into a popularity contest? I can count the people I think are rude and obnoxious on one hand (and not just to me), you are by far the worst and Sommers is a distant 2nd.

As for being well-liked and trolling, I'm not a Democrat and I'm not shy about explaining why, especially when I'm insulted for not being a Democrat. Some of the Democrats here insult people constantly. Trump, Republicans, independents, libertarians, generally anyone who doesn't agree with them enough to pass their test.

Some of you are especially angered when your criticisms of the Republicans are true for the Democrats too. Thats what you call trolling, not the barrage of insults you level at people. No, thats okay... Its only trolling when the people you've been insulting hand you a mirror.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Thats what you call trolling, not the barrage of insults you level at people.

That's called flaming, and I've been infracted for it enough to know. I would think, given your usual behavior, that you would also be well aware of the difference.

 

[Berzerker]

That's called flaming, and I've been infracted for it enough to know. I would think, given your usual behavior, that you would also be well aware of the difference.

Troll - to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troll

You've admitted doing that on purpose