And here they come out of woodwork

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cooter said:
The sad part is that you don't know how ridiculous you sound. Any person who can construe the simple phrase "with all due respect", as a demeaning insult has problems that won't be resolved in a forum post.

But just to enlighten you so as to protect you from further injury, the phrase in question uses the word "DUE", which you seem to miss completely. That means the respect that is DUE, which in this case is being lessened with each post. For some reason you seem to think it means "I respect you". It pays to be attentive to the actual words that are being used.

Also, for some reason you have joined respect with agreement in a way that makes you think it is impossible to have respect for someone's opinion and yet be in disagreement. This is a serious error and incidentally, the reason this conversation has gone in the direction that it has. Any man who can't handle a simple disagreement without inferring disrespect, is a man who is incapable of meaningful interaction. Do you demand that type of fawning subservience from all your friends?

The content of my OP to you was to say that you are arguing from preference as opposed to arguing from bestowed rights. The result of such a line of argument is that another's preference can be equally valid. Gun control is a serious threat to our freedoms and needs to be argued from that which provides that right to own them in the first place. Sorry that you can't handle a difference of opinion. If you want a further apology, you'll have to do a much better job of pointing out my transgressions.
Click to expand...
I understand that you are lost and cannot respect a differing opinion. You could have done anything other than claiming that your opinion was the only valid argument. You didn’t make that choice. Your choice indicates that you have no respect for other opinions. I offered an opinion that differed from yours and you are the one who rejected it and continue to reject it without a valid basis. It is sad that you cannot accept that there are other perspectives.
 
Clark1961 said:
I understand that you are lost and cannot respect a differing opinion. You could have done anything other than claiming that your opinion was the only valid argument. You didn’t make that choice. Your choice indicates that you have no respect for other opinions. I offered an opinion that differed from yours and you are the one who rejected it and continue to reject it without a valid basis. It is sad that you cannot accept that there are other perspectives.
Click to expand...

You are either delusional, or incapable of rational discussion. I'm embarrassed for having participated. Admitting you're wrong isn't as hard as you might think, and it may preserve some of that respect you are so interested in possessing.
 
Clark1961, is it possible to respect an opinion and also reject it?
 
Dav8or said:
Here's the cool thing about the US Constitution. If the people of the USA don't like say, the 2nd Amendment and want the second basically nullified because there is a real, serious threat of being gunned down someday by a worthless looney tune with a intense desire to be a famous talk of the town, the Constitution provides the means to do that! Simply write up and get a new Amendment passed by the House, the Senate and the President that negates the 2nd Amendment. That's all there is to it!...
Click to expand...
Sorry, that's NOT "all there is to it." Amendments don't take effect unless they are ratified by three-fourths of the states. And the President plays no role in the process.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.​

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
 
Palmpilot said:
Sorry, that's NOT "all there is to it." Amendments don't take effect unless they are ratified by three-fourths of the states. And the President plays no role in the process.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.​

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
Click to expand...

Yeah, OK. Forgot about that part. Going from memory here, not research. The point still stands. Wanna change the parts of the Constitution you don't like? There is a way.
 
Palmpilot said:
Sorry, that's NOT "all there is to it." Amendments don't take effect unless they are ratified by three-fourths of the states. And the President plays no role in the process.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.​

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
Click to expand...

Good catch!
 
I feel like the alcohol analogy is apt. We accept the bad parts that go along with it, perhaps because of its wide acceptance. I have "not in recent times" heard a politician trying to limit alcohol supply, hard liquor, or how much you can carry at one time. Why? Because drinking and driving is already illegal, and perhaps a number of those who would drive drunk, likely would find a way to skirt whatever new laws we make up to keep them sober.

It's like guns, in that if you are "OK" with guns, you might be against further restrictions. If you are OK with alcohol, you might be more likely to be OK with possessing as much alcohol as you like, and see the lawbreakers as people breaking an existing law about driving while intoxicated. If I started pushing my "3 beer max" law, so many people would roll their eyes at me. I bet though, there are very sober people who are so against alcohol that they would support my cause. Does that make my cause right? Yes, perhaps less deaths to innocent people would occur. No, because it infringes upon individuals rights to have alcohol, just to hopefully deter the bad apples.

I just read an interesting analysis:
http://www.twincities.com/2017/10/0...was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/

What happened in Vegas is indeed a senseless tragedy, and prayers go out to all affected. It's horrible, and I don't wish an event like that on anyone.
 
Last edited:
StevieTimes said:
I feel like the alcohol analogy is apt. We accept the bad parts that go along with it, perhaps because of its wide acceptance. I have never heard a politician trying to limit alcohol supply, hard liquor, or how much you can carry at one time. Why? Because drinking and driving is already illegal, and perhaps a number of those who would drive drunk, likely would find a way to skirt whatever new laws we make up to keep them sober.

It's like guns, in that if you are "OK" with guns, you might be against further restrictions. If you are OK with alcohol, you might be more likely to be OK with possessing as much alcohol as you like, and see the lawbreakers as people breaking an existing law about driving while intoxicated. If I started pushing my "3 beer max" law, so many people would roll their eyes at me. I bet though, there are very sober people who are so against alcohol that they would support my cause. Does that make my cause right? Yes, perhaps less deaths to innocent people would occur. No, because it infringes upon individuals rights to have alcohol, just to hopefully deter the bad apples.

I just read an interesting analysis:
http://www.twincities.com/2017/10/0...was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/

What happened in Vegas is indeed a senseless tragedy, and prayers go out to all affected. It's horrible, and I don't wish an event like that on anyone.
Click to expand...
Good article. Unfortunately not all are as easily persuaded by the facts.
 
StevieTimes said:
I feel like the alcohol analogy is apt. We accept the bad parts that go along with it, perhaps because of its wide acceptance. I have never heard a politician trying to limit alcohol supply, hard liquor, or how much you can carry at one time.
Click to expand...

Never heard of Prohibition? Or "Blue Laws?" Or something about BAC while driving or *gasp* flying?

Those couldn't have possibly have come from a politician, could they?
 
Caramon13 said:
I think I did in my post. Sidearm, non automatic long gun and a shotgun. Covers protection and hunting. Any hunter worth his/her salt only needs one bullet, maybe two. And personally a sidearm works fine for protecting my family.

If the framers of the constitution wrote "right to beer", does that automatically give people the right to own a beer refinery with no regulation on who to sell it to or who can drink it?
Click to expand...
Re the beer analogy... No it doesn’t. Personally I think there are to many restrictions on firearms now. Having more would not have changed anything in Vegas.
 
Ravioli said:
Never heard of Prohibition? Or "Blue Laws?" Or something about BAC while driving or *gasp* flying?

Those couldn't have possibly have come from a politician, could they?
Click to expand...

I covered the BAC while driving in the next sentence that you removed from my quote.
"Why? Because drinking and driving is already illegal, and perhaps a number of those who would drive drunk, likely would find a way to skirt whatever new laws we make up to keep them sober."

Prohibition is not something I've heard proposed by any politician recently. I'm missing your point on this one. Is it because I said "never", and you figured that I meant "in all time ever, not just current events"? If that's what you mean, I stand corrected; but I feel like most understood my point to be "in today's times". If anyone else was confused, I apologize for my ambiguity, I must have forgot where I was posting.

The Blue Laws is interesting, I didn't know that was proposed to reduce alcohol-related deaths. Are any politicians proposing more of those recently? I again apologize that I wasn't more clear; my whole post meant "recently", not "in any time ever".
 
I edited my post to indicate my intent to compare recent events. I realize how confusing it was before.
 
StevieTimes said:
I feel like the alcohol analogy is apt. We accept the bad parts that go along with it, perhaps because of its wide acceptance. I have never heard a politician trying to limit alcohol supply, hard liquor, or how much you can carry at one time. Why? Because drinking and driving is already illegal, and perhaps a number of those who would drive drunk, likely would find a way to skirt whatever new laws we make up to keep them sober.

It's like guns, in that if you are "OK" with guns, you might be against further restrictions. If you are OK with alcohol, you might be more likely to be OK with possessing as much alcohol as you like, and see the lawbreakers as people breaking an existing law about driving while intoxicated. If I started pushing my "3 beer max" law, so many people would roll their eyes at me. I bet though, there are very sober people who are so against alcohol that they would support my cause. Does that make my cause right? Yes, perhaps less deaths to innocent people would occur. No, because it infringes upon individuals rights to have alcohol, just to hopefully deter the bad apples.

I just read an interesting analysis:
http://www.twincities.com/2017/10/0...was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/

What happened in Vegas is indeed a senseless tragedy, and prayers go out to all affected. It's horrible, and I don't wish an event like that on anyone.
Click to expand...

The alcohol analogy is very apt and we don't even have to guess what would happen if the zero tolerance extremists got their way- we did it with prohibition. We learned what a disastrous failure it was but still we are too stupid, collectively, to learn from the lessons of history.

I love the article you reference, when someone has an open mind and comes to a different conclusion based on studying the facts.

I'm currently reading a book that is blowing my mind, and making me do the same thing on the subject of incarceration of black and poor drug offenders. It is written by a black progressive liberal who was a prosecutor who started his career with ideological visions of changing the system from within to make it more fair, but came to the conclusion that the law itself (drug prohibition) is making that impossible. I always thought (like he did) that having African American lawyers and judges and politicians would help things be more fair but he found that the reverse is true. What it actually does is pit "good" blacks against "bad" blacks, i.e. the defendants you are trying to lock up, and exacerbating trust within the community. Black politicians like all of them pander to the vote, and most people of all races tend to vote "lock up the druggies" under a mistaken impression that locking up more drug offenders makes the community safer. Turns out that in reality it doesn't.

He points out the deep flaws in our justice system such as police reliance on snitches. Offenders facing mandatory harsh sentences will throw anyone they can under the bus including any innocent they can think of in exchange for leniency. This fosters a deep suspicion and mistrust in the community. Police and prosecutors are rewarded with status and promotions for numbers of convictions whether big time pushers or end user addicts, but the end users (the least dangerous and often non-violent offenders) are the easiest to get, so the actual conviction rate is the reverse of what everyone claims they support: locking up the gang leaders and heavy pushers and not so much the poor addict. This emphasis on numbers seduces almost all prosecutors no matter race and blacks are no exception as he confessed himself.

He learned about jury nullification and how prosecutors deliberately screen out potential jurors that have heard of the concept. He has come around to believe that jury nullification is one of the most important tools that we as citizens can use to turn around this horrific persecution that the "war on drugs" has become. Those who suffer are very rarely the rich drug lords but up to FIFTY PERCENT of inner city black males, that is the rate with past or present criminal convictions, many of these innocent victims of snitches.

I haven't read all the book yet, there is much more but this guy presents from the inside, the core of the black vs police issue that has erupted in so much violence, protests, the BLM movement and even the Colin K. kneeling (which he is completely wrong that's not how to go about fixing this and the BLM is just a tool of Soros etc. but I digress.). These attention hoes mislabel the whole thing.

The real problem causing the crisis of the black (and poor white) communities are the failed drug laws (not "racism"), just like prohibition: the creation of a black market and all the attendant crime, violence, disrespect for the law and cultural upheaval that always comes when you try to ban something that people are going to insist on having whether you approve of it or not. You cannot legislate away human nature.
 
StevieTimes said:
Is it because I said "never", and you figured that I meant "in all time ever, not just current events"? If that's what you mean, I stand corrected

The Blue Laws is interesting, I didn't know that was proposed to reduce alcohol-related deaths. Are any politicians proposing more of those recently? I again apologize that I wasn't more clear; my whole post meant "recently", not "in any time ever".
Click to expand...

Yes, you said Never which is eternal. Like if I said there have never been laws allowing witch burning, which of course is false.

The Blue Laws are all over the place. Texas doesn't allow sale of any alcohol from Midnight to 7am Mon-Fri, 1:00am to Noon on Sunday, and Sundays are Beer and Wine only (none of the strong stuff)

Pretty over regulated, legislated, and contrary to your premise.

Almost forgot: Maximum alcohol percentage (or proof) is highly regulated for each class of beverage currently available for retail sale.
 
Last edited:
StevieTimes said:
I covered the BAC while driving in the next sentence that you removed from my quote.
"Why? Because drinking and driving is already illegal, and perhaps a number of those who would drive drunk, likely would find a way to skirt whatever new laws we make up to keep them sober."

Prohibition is not something I've heard proposed by any politician recently. I'm missing your point on this one. Is it because I said "never", and you figured that I meant "in all time ever, not just current events"? If that's what you mean, I stand corrected; but I feel like most understood my point to be "in today's times". If anyone else was confused, I apologize for my ambiguity, I must have forgot where I was posting.

The Blue Laws is interesting, I didn't know that was proposed to reduce alcohol-related deaths. Are any politicians proposing more of those recently? I again apologize that I wasn't more clear; my whole post meant "recently", not "in any time ever".
Click to expand...

Stevie,

Liquor sales are ah huge business. A month or so I was speaking with the owner of a neighborhood grocery store I know. He has a huge inventory of booze and told me that many bottles sit on the shelf for a long time are still necessary because people want them. IIRC, he said there was over $200,000 sitting there and some of it was what he called 'dead money' that only got turned over occasionally.

Alcoholic beverages have been part of our culture since forever. That' not likely to go away soon.
 
Does this great book have a title? :)

Rushie said:
The alcohol analogy is very apt and we don't even have to guess what would happen if the zero tolerance extremists got their way- we did it with prohibition. We learned what a disastrous failure it was but still we are too stupid, collectively, to learn from the lessons of history.

I love the article you reference, when someone has an open mind and comes to a different conclusion based on studying the facts.

I'm currently reading a book that is blowing my mind, and making me do the same thing on the subject of incarceration of black and poor drug offenders. It is written by a black progressive liberal who was a prosecutor who started his career with ideological visions of changing the system from within to make it more fair, but came to the conclusion that the law itself (drug prohibition) is making that impossible. I always thought (like he did) that having African American lawyers and judges and politicians would help things be more fair but he found that the reverse is true. What it actually does is pit "good" blacks against "bad" blacks, i.e. the defendants you are trying to lock up, and exacerbating trust within the community. Black politicians like all of them pander to the vote, and most people of all races tend to vote "lock up the druggies" under a mistaken impression that locking up more drug offenders makes the community safer. Turns out that in reality it doesn't.

He points out the deep flaws in our justice system such as police reliance on snitches. Offenders facing mandatory harsh sentences will throw anyone they can under the bus including any innocent they can think of in exchange for leniency. This fosters a deep suspicion and mistrust in the community. Police and prosecutors are rewarded with status and promotions for numbers of convictions whether big time pushers or end user addicts, but the end users (the least dangerous and often non-violent offenders) are the easiest to get, so the actual conviction rate is the reverse of what everyone claims they support: locking up the gang leaders and heavy pushers and not so much the poor addict. This emphasis on numbers seduces almost all prosecutors no matter race and blacks are no exception as he confessed himself.

He learned about jury nullification and how prosecutors deliberately screen out potential jurors that have heard of the concept. He has come around to believe that jury nullification is one of the most important tools that we as citizens can use to turn around this horrific persecution that the "war on drugs" has become. Those who suffer are very rarely the rich drug lords but up to FIFTY PERCENT of inner city black males, that is the rate with past or present criminal convictions, many of these innocent victims of snitches.

I haven't read all the book yet, there is much more but this guy presents from the inside, the core of the black vs police issue that has erupted in so much violence, protests, the BLM movement and even the Colin K. kneeling (which he is completely wrong that's not how to go about fixing this and the BLM is just a tool of Soros etc. but I digress.). These attention hoes mislabel the whole thing.

The real problem causing the crisis of the black (and poor white) communities are the failed drug laws (not "racism"), just like prohibition: the creation of a black market and all the attendant crime, violence, disrespect for the law and cultural upheaval that always comes when you try to ban something that people are going to insist on having whether you approve of it or not. You cannot legislate away human nature.
Click to expand...
 
Rushie said:
...the Colin K. kneeling (which he is completely wrong...
Click to expand...
Given that it's a non-violent form of protest, I have a hard time seeing that as "wrong."
 
Rushie said:
The alcohol analogy is very apt and we don't even have to guess what would happen if the zero tolerance extremists got their way- we did it with prohibition. We learned what a disastrous failure it was but still we are too stupid, collectively, to learn from the lessons of history.

I love the article you reference, when someone has an open mind and comes to a different conclusion based on studying the facts.

I'm currently reading a book that is blowing my mind, and making me do the same thing on the subject of incarceration of black and poor drug offenders. It is written by a black progressive liberal who was a prosecutor who started his career with ideological visions of changing the system from within to make it more fair, but came to the conclusion that the law itself (drug prohibition) is making that impossible. I always thought (like he did) that having African American lawyers and judges and politicians would help things be more fair but he found that the reverse is true. What it actually does is pit "good" blacks against "bad" blacks, i.e. the defendants you are trying to lock up, and exacerbating trust within the community. Black politicians like all of them pander to the vote, and most people of all races tend to vote "lock up the druggies" under a mistaken impression that locking up more drug offenders makes the community safer. Turns out that in reality it doesn't.

He points out the deep flaws in our justice system such as police reliance on snitches. Offenders facing mandatory harsh sentences will throw anyone they can under the bus including any innocent they can think of in exchange for leniency. This fosters a deep suspicion and mistrust in the community. Police and prosecutors are rewarded with status and promotions for numbers of convictions whether big time pushers or end user addicts, but the end users (the least dangerous and often non-violent offenders) are the easiest to get, so the actual conviction rate is the reverse of what everyone claims they support: locking up the gang leaders and heavy pushers and not so much the poor addict. This emphasis on numbers seduces almost all prosecutors no matter race and blacks are no exception as he confessed himself.

He learned about jury nullification and how prosecutors deliberately screen out potential jurors that have heard of the concept. He has come around to believe that jury nullification is one of the most important tools that we as citizens can use to turn around this horrific persecution that the "war on drugs" has become. Those who suffer are very rarely the rich drug lords but up to FIFTY PERCENT of inner city black males, that is the rate with past or present criminal convictions, many of these innocent victims of snitches.

I haven't read all the book yet, there is much more but this guy presents from the inside, the core of the black vs police issue that has erupted in so much violence, protests, the BLM movement and even the Colin K. kneeling (which he is completely wrong that's not how to go about fixing this and the BLM is just a tool of Soros etc. but I digress.). These attention hoes mislabel the whole thing.

The real problem causing the crisis of the black (and poor white) communities are the failed drug laws (not "racism"), just like prohibition: the creation of a black market and all the attendant crime, violence, disrespect for the law and cultural upheaval that always comes when you try to ban something that people are going to insist on having whether you approve of it or not. You cannot legislate away human nature.
Click to expand...
And the root of those failed drug laws is a population willing to let the government regulate what should be a matter of individual choice. I think the current drug laws go against everything our country was built on. Same for affirmative action laws.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
And the root of those failed drug laws is a population willing to let the government regulate what should be a matter of individual choice. I think the current drug laws go against everything our country was built on. Same for affirmative action laws.
Click to expand...
I'm a bit of a conservative when it comes to illicit drugs, but boy I agree when it comes to doctor prescribed meds. The limits on opioids these days make them useless to the people that actually need them. This country was all about erring on the side of not making things worse for innocent people. We're failing. Even trump is.
 
Clark1961 said:
I understand that you are lost and cannot respect a differing opinion. You could have done anything other than claiming that your opinion was the only valid argument. You didn’t make that choice. Your choice indicates that you have no respect for other opinions. I offered an opinion that differed from yours and you are the one who rejected it and continue to reject it without a valid basis. It is sad that you cannot accept that there are other perspectives.
Click to expand...

Try to discuss religion with him ;-)
 
weilke said:
Try to discuss religion with him ;-)
Click to expand...
Much like a previous conversation I had with you, he didn't offer any substance for real disagreement and conversation. He threw out a canard and simply repeated himself over and over.

I like to work through disagreements and will gladly acknowledge a superior point. But some take disagreement as a personal insult and abandon all rationality in defending their pride.

Just to recap, his point is that by using the phrase "with all due respect", you imply agreement. If that phrase is used while making a statement of disagreement, you have blatantly lied and dishonored yourself.

My point is that respect is not intrinsically tied to agreement. Respect can remain intact while working through differences.

Since you've included yourself in the conversation, which point do you agree with?
 
Cooter said:
Much like a previous conversation I had with you, he didn't offer any substance for real disagreement and conversation. He threw out a canard and simply repeated himself over and over.

I like to work through disagreements and will gladly acknowledge a superior point. But some take disagreement as a personal insult and abandon all rationality in defending their pride.

Just to recap, his point is that by using the phrase "with all due respect", you imply agreement. If that phrase is used while making a statement of disagreement, you have blatantly lied and dishonored yourself.
Click to expand...

That is not my point. By using the phrase "with all due respect" you are claim that you respect another person or opinion. In this case the words that followed the phrase indicated quite clearly that you do not respect the other person or opinion.
 
Cooter said:
Since you've included yourself in the conversation, which point do you agree with?
Click to expand...

The point that you are ideologically rigid and consider whatever position you staked out as the truth. 'Discussion' under those conditions tends to be fruitless.
 
Clark1961 said:
That is not my point. By using the phrase "with all due respect" you are claim that you respect another person or opinion. In this case the words that followed the phrase indicated quite clearly that you do not respect the other person or opinion.
Click to expand...
"You are arguing the wrong point" was what followed. That is stating a disagreement. I think that arguing from preference is the wrong line of argument when it comes to defending rights. I am pointing this out because many people make that mistake. Most of the talking heads on TV do a poor job of defending gun ownership. I was simply pointing out that a better argument is to argue directly from the constitution. That is the basis for our rights. I don't care if you agree or disagree, but that shouldn't keep me from voicing my opinion.

My initial comment conveyed no lack of respect, only disagreement. I also don't agree that "with all due respect" automatically conveys respect. It is a phrase of civility and politeness, and that is how I intended it.

Perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of your conversation, but the Constitution was referenced in the post you were replying to, I assumed you were trying to defend second amendment rights. If all you're doing is explaining gun ownership to someone who is unfamiliar, then that's fine, I misunderstood your purpose.

Our point of contention is that you thought I disrespected you and your opinion because I disagreed with it. I intended no disrespect in my disagreement and don't believe my words conveyed it. I agree with your point about owning multiple guns, I have many myself (maybe). I just don't think anti-gun folks buy that argument.
 
Ravioli said:
The Blue Laws are all over the place. Texas doesn't allow sale of any alcohol from Midnight to 7am Mon-Fri, 1:00am to Noon on Sunday, and Sundays are Beer and Wine only (none of the strong stuff)

Pretty over regulated, legislated, and contrary to your premise.
Click to expand...

Also, there are still plenty of dry counties (red below) - especially in all those 'freedom loving' places:

upload_2017-10-4_15-3-55.png
 
1RTK1 said:
I read the other day [don't know if true or not] that 2/3 of all gun death are from suicide.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you include suicides & accidents the 11,583 number goes up to 31,537. Checkout_my_Six did the right thing by only listing the actual murder rate.
 
weilke said:
The point that you are ideologically rigid and consider whatever position you staked out as the truth. 'Discussion' under those conditions tends to be fruitless.
Click to expand...
You don't believe that you believe the truth? Why is certainty an offense?

And for the record, there are many things I am uncertain about. But I don't argue issues I haven't thought through.

One of the things I have put considerable time into understanding is religion and foundations of belief. I've spent many years studying why people believe what they believe, and those hours of study have brought me much closer to the truth. With that comes confidence that some people find off-putting. I welcome any challenge to my beliefs, because it is through conversation and debate that weak points are revealed. I'm aware of some weaknesses in my arguments, but I believe they are the best rational explanation for the world we live in. I challenge people who write my beliefs off as myths and fairy tales, because I didn't randomly pick some arbitrary God to believe in with my eyes close to reality. I studied the evidence and was convinced over time. So, when people like you try to discredit my beliefs, I challenge yours. The problem is that many people aren't able to defend their beliefs and they get angry when they don't have a satisfying answer. That anger turns against the person who has challenged them.

I was able to have a conversation with @redtail because he has studied his religion and has applied it to his life. We got along fine, even though we disagreed. I discuss these issues with anyone with whom I can have an honest, cordial conversation. That is becoming more difficult because more and more people want to believe in a caricature of religious belief, and are irritated when the myth of that caricature is dispelled.
 
Palmpilot said:
Given that it's a non-violent form of protest, I have a hard time seeing that as "wrong."
Click to expand...

He is using (abusing) his employer's platform to express his personal disrespect for the anthem of the nation that has brought him wealth and fame, a disrespect which is not shared by a good portion of his employer's customers and hence a direct slap in the face to them, those who pay money to make him rich. He causes upset and divisiveness in an arena that should be for entertainment and relaxation.

Standing for the anthem doesn't mean you have to agree with everything the U.S. has ever done or is currently doing. But not standing for it demonstrates contempt for that which it symbolizes: A nation born out of the desire for Liberty. I'll have no truck with that; if you hate this country that much, get out.

The Rights enumerated in the Constitution are the black man's best hope. The Anthem celebrates a few white men breaking from the tyranny of a king, it does not celebrate the fact that some of them owned slaves. It took another century to see the light with respect to race which was more about recognizing that ethnic Africans were in fact fully human than about there being anything wrong with the Constitution or the concept of individual liberty.

So if you cannot grasp all this or at the very least fake the body motions of an opening ceremony (just stand, cross your fingers behind your back if you must) to an event benefiting you financially enough to keep you richer than 99% of your white "oppressors" then yes, what you are doing is wrong. I may agree with your opinions about too many blacks being incarcerated but this method of protest is counterproductive. Use your own money to buy your own billboards. Keep it out of the games.

PS edit: the generic you, palm pilot, not you.:)
 
Last edited:
deonb said:
This:

and this:



are contradictory. "Best rational explanation" is a great philosophy to live by. It's how science also works. The moment however you use "the truth", it becomes about passing judgement on those who has a "Best rational explanation" that differ from yours, rather than being open to "welcome any challenge to my belief".
Click to expand...
I want to better understand the point you are making. Do you believe in an ultimate reality?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top