The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Timsup2nothin]

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

I have, but not here. You've also admitted it; and admitted doing it here, so I don't see what your continuous references to me having admitted it are doing for you.

 

[Berzerker]

Yes you did, in Hygro's state of the OT thread... Where did I say I was a troll? As for what they're doing for me, it shows your hypocrisy for complaining about trolls, if it wasn't already obvious.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes you did, in Hygro's state of the OT thread... Where did I say I was a troll? As for what they're doing for me, it shows your hypocrisy for complaining about trolls, if it wasn't already obvious.

Where you've boasted about your trolling skills is something you have to live with, because no matter who you lie to about it now I don't think you are delusional enough to convince yourself that you didn't do it. For my part, I have said on this forum many times that I troll the comments section of Breitbarf among other places, and I've never denied it. I don't troll here, because I consider this one of my communities. I flame trolls here, in hopes that they will either leave voluntarily or the uproar will draw attention to them so they will get banned. I consider that a community service and other than a couple of trolls it seems like most everyone appreciates my efforts. But, as I said, I have been avoiding flaming the regular trolls and have no desire to continue conversing with you until you egg me back into it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Can someone tag me when the conversation gets interesting again?

 

[Berzerker]

Where you've boasted about your trolling skills is something you have to live with, because no matter who you lie to about it now I don't think you are delusional enough to convince yourself that you didn't do it. For my part, I have said on this forum many times that I troll the comments section of Breitbarf among other places, and I've never denied it. I don't troll here, because I consider this one of my communities. I flame trolls here, in hopes that they will either leave voluntarily or the uproar will draw attention to them so they will get banned. I consider that a community service and other than a couple of trolls it seems like most everyone appreciates my efforts. But, as I said, I have been avoiding flaming the regular trolls and have no desire to continue conversing with you until you egg me back into it.

I dont have to live with it, I've never said I was a troll... anywhere. You did...twice. Okay, many times. You're projecting again. And I egged you back into it? I was talking to Sommers and you jumped into our discussion.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Can someone tag me when the conversation gets interesting again?

You would be extremely welcome to take it in any direction. Before it got dragged down the rathole I had responded to you, and so had Sommerswerd. Though I see that both of our responses were probably too facetious to really invite much of a continuation down that line. Maybe a new hypothetical is in order? Or a return to raw theory?

I mentioned the legalities of a valid self defense claim, maybe we could steer off into that area.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And I egged you back into it?

Not yet, but your continuing efforts are a plain demonstration that you are still practicing the skills you have boasted about. As I just mentioned to Sommerswerd, I'll quit the forum rather than go back to flaming trolls, so it's up to someone else to take up that torch.

 

[Berzerker]

Not yet, but your continuing efforts are a plain demonstration that you are still practicing the skills you have boasted about. As I just mentioned to Sommerswerd, I'll quit the forum rather than go back to flaming trolls, so it's up to someone else to take up that torch.

I'm just defending myself

my 'god-given' right

Btw, did y'all get together and you got the short stick? Or did you have an election and you were voted the job? Or were you self appointed?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm just defending myself

my 'god-given' right

Actually, god is defending you, so in my opinion you should be grateful. Maybe even quit being a troll. But that's up to you.

 

[Berzerker]

But you're the one who admitted being a troll, why dont you stop?

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: Okay, enough discussing each other and playing "Who's a troll?" Get back to the topics at hand or I will go and get my infraction stick. Thank you.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Honestly, you should get used to the concept of Spinoza's god.

Yep, I saw The Matrix... Men in Black too. The bottom line is that the claim that one thing, especially one living thing has "rights" and another living thing doesn't, requires an explanation of where those "rights" come from and why. If we want to use "existence" as a placeholder for some entity, or concept that is somehow higher and in some superior moral position to "cause I said so", then whether you call it "the great spaghetti monster", "Jebus", "Baal", "Zuul", "the Universe"... whatever, its all the same concept for the purposes of this issue. Jeez, just like politics... people are always jerking themselves off with imaginary, irrelevant nuances, trying to artificially complicate their simplistic positions and ideologies... then they deflect into arguing to the death over their BS overcomplications rather than addressing the real issue. Its boring sometimes, particularly when its so repetitive, and such an obvious deflection tactic.

So yeah sorry El_Mac, I don't mean to snipe/sneer at you... I get it..,. the alternate/non-religious god, or whatever... its just that those specifics aren't relevant to this issue. Either you're following/using a particular well-known religious philosophy to justify your great spaghetti monster given gun-rights, which we can then discuss on those terms... or you're following some other made-up monkeysqueeze, which we can discuss on those terms. What I'm weary of, is all this self-serving flip-floppery to whatever poorly reasoned contradictory justification suits the moment.

 

[El_Machinae]

My original suspicion was that part of the frustration that you had was that you typed out a paragraph pointing out how the Abrahamic god instructed to not kill, and then had it dismissed with "that's not what I meant" instead of discussing anything you wrote. I agree that the underlying principle he's arguing is frustrating, but the naming of it then lead to a rabbit-trail that you didn't appreciate. If you'd recognized that he was just reframing (not satisfactorily) the idea that human rights came to about due to the nature of human existence, then the response you wrote would have been different. I'm not chastising you for not recognizing it or anything. Just that it's going to happen again, so that you should know which part of the conversation to actually skip. Other people will say 'god' and mean "Spinoza's god", and forget to tell you or only allude to that being their reference.

By analogy: you're going to run into people who don't like tomatoes. And they're going to say "I don't like it because of the texture". There is no argument about the definition of texture that will change their mind. So, even if they define texture differently, it doesn't matter. It's not like they're going to eat tomatoes or you're going to soon present them a new invention that's altered along a 'fibrosity/acidity' scale in order to create a tomato that they like (and so that we can then argue if it's actually still a tomato). You're just going to change which virtues of a tomato you emphasize. Someone might not like tomatoes. But those same people might choose to accept them in their salads if they (I dunno) learn that they help prevent prostate cancer. The new analysis of tomato will cause them to reprioritize how they value (what they're calling) 'texture'.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think I understand most of what you're saying. However, I don't think that covers it fully. Another thing that is annoying me here is that there is a pattern... of taking a clear political, ideological, philosophical, etc., position... having that position called out or exposed as odious, illogical, contradictory to their prior positions, etc., and them then trying to deny ever taking the position, or getting all cagey about whether they took the position or not. Then even in the face of direct questioning about what the hell position is being taken, there's nothing but vagueness, ambiguity and deflection, peppered by red-herrings and strawmanning.

I mean I just witnessed a guy trying to prop up his failed argument, by taking a position that is diametrically opposed to something that he has passionately advocated in the past... which in and of itself... whatever, it happens... we all have a tendency to look at things through a self-serving, in-the-moment perspective. But when the contradiction is pointed out, he outright refuses to acknowledge it. So at that point, it becomes hard to tell whether I'm just being pranked/gaslighted, whatever, or if the person really does not perceive that they've blatantly contradicted one of their own flagship arguments. And like I said... its not just this one time... its a pattern of behavior.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Relevant
Religious Conservatives Argue Adam And Eve Would Never Have Been Banished From Eden If They’d Had Guns

 

[El_Machinae]

Part of it is figuring out which part of the argument is deontological and which part is consequential. And which part is post-hoc justification and which part is actually first-principle.

For example: when I said "I have no problem with the death penalty, it's just that it doesn't work" it's very easy to figure out what I mean. I'm not saying that the Death Penalty is a moral good, despite its consequences. For me, it's as simple as predicting (and measuring) which speed limit is best for a residential street. From my first principles, it's acceptable. And then I see what's going to happen. I'm not willing to execute because "killing is bad". I'm willing to execute because "killing is undesirable, but if it must happen, this guy volunteered".

Likewise, I think it's acceptable to want a gun. And to want you to not have a gun. But I only care about the eventual shake-out of how the stats work. I don't think I even have a first-principles stance on owning a gun beyond a simple "we should be allowed to own stuff that doesn't make everything else worse".

Compare that to my moral stance on charity. Now, sometimes I think a charity donation is wise. But that's just rational self-interest. Me supporting the Rotary to wipe out polio just makes my future life better. And I think people are nuts for not donating more to Alzheimer's research. Like bonkers. But some of my charity is not an attempt to make the future 'better', it's just that I think it's good to forgo in order to help someone else out. It might even be a post-hoc rationalization of an instinct. It's easier if there's some type of leverage (I gave up my ice-cream so that they could get spaghetti), but it needn't even be so clear-cut. Like, 'have my coupon for a free coffee'. And when I decide to donate to charity, I'm doing so out of a moral urge. The specific spending will be a weird combination of post-hoc justifications and attempts at predicting consequences.

And sometimes my entire framing is entirely post-hoc and I'm embarrassed later at having convinced myself. When I do animal research, we kill animals with the intended goal of creating human medicines. "If I were starving on an island, I would need to eat one rat per day in order to stay alive. Ergo, a human day is worth one rat life. Ergo, if the sum of the animal research causes humans to live longer, we can just simply calculate the benefit in rat-days."

There's no first-principle there. I just declared that I was morally allowed to kill rats in order to stay alive. Now, I can pretend it's a first-principle. "Oh, nature forced us to choose between rats and ourselves, and then used natural selection to declare that 'selfishness' is going to be the winning strategy in the grand scope of time". But that's about it. And someone else might reasonably say "dude, people are going to chose themselves over rats 99% of the time, might as well deal with it". But then, that's kinda the end of the conversation. We're gonna kill rats to stay alive. If you want fewer rats killed, help me create alternatives. Don't try to force me to stop. Because, one will work and the other one won't.

With guns (and me) it happened very easily. I want a gun for self-defense. And then people said "if you look at arranging society a certain way, you're actually safer without a gun". And then I said "sure, whatevs, sounds good. I was mainly just trying to not get killed."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Likewise, I think it's acceptable to want a gun. And to want you to not have a gun. But I only care about the eventual shake-out of how the stats work. I don't think I even have a first-principles stance on owning a gun beyond a simple "we should be allowed to own stuff that doesn't make everything else worse".

Are you willing to consider that this is a contradiction, based on the premise that a gun is in fact not in that broad category 'doesn't make everything else worse'?

 

[El_Machinae]

Are you willing to consider that this is a contradiction, based on the premise that a gun is in fact not in that broad category 'doesn't make everything else worse'?

Slightly too many negatives. Can you rephrase?

What I mean is "I can be convinced that we should not be allowed to wear bomb vests but we should be allowed to wear socks". After that, my only question is "where does my owning a gun (and you also being allowed to have one) fit into that spectrum". It's a framing of the consquences of the ownership being the most important part. But also that the permission to own should be assumed, and then deliberately unallowed after we ponder the consequences.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Slightly too many negatives. Can you rephrase?

What I mean is "I can be convinced that we should not be allowed to wear bomb vests but we should be allowed to wear socks". After that, my only question is "where does my owning a gun (and you also being allowed to have one) fit into that spectrum". It's a framing of the consquences of the ownership being the most important part. But also that the permission to own should be assumed, and then deliberately unallowed after we ponder the consequences.

I can rephrase.

You said we should be allowed to own what we want, so long as it is something that "doesn't make everything worse." So, yes, we get to have socks but we don't get to have bomb vests since bomb vests make everything worse. Similar to bomb vests, guns make everything worse, objectively speaking. They might make some, or even most, gun owners feel more secure, but statistics bear out that they actually make everyone, including the gun owners, less secure.

So, I guess maybe I should have checked whether I needed you to rephrase. Are you saying that having acknowledged the real consequences, and despite the false sense of security that gun owners feel, we should not allow gun ownership?

 

[El_Machinae]

So, that's just a question as to whether I accept your premise (which would be based on how it seems to work in the real world). In the US, I'd say that it looks like the current system of gun ownership doesn't help very much. There are other countries that seem to do the set of permissions much better.

So, yeah, unrestricted gun ownership seems to end poorly. Because of that, out of a sense of pure self-interest, I'm quite fine with gun restrictions that I am also subject to.