Four Fallacies of Smart People
-
Alex hogarth wrote:
I can, and it would seem that everyone else can
Your use of "we" and "everyone else" implies that this thread was being monitored and steered by people not participating. Christian Grass does not recognize reality as it really is, instead he goes with the "weakness is strength, less is more" doublethink.
"The task of saving the earth's environment must and will become the central organizing principle of the post-Cold War world." Senator Al Gore Putting People First 1992 ------ "The sacrifice of personal existence is necessary to secure the preservation of the species." Adolph Hitler Mein Kampf 1923 ------ If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." O'Brien to Winston George Orwell 1984 1949
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
our use of "we" and "everyone else" implies that this thread was being monitored and steered by people not participating
No it is a nod to the fact that only you seem to be on your side and all other posters against you. Steered? are the voices in your head at it again?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Christian Grass does not recognize reality as it really is, instead he goes with the "weakness is strength, less is more" doublethink.
No, his logic is sound, he says that in an de-gunned country the odds on meeting an armed man are reduce so the odd on being shot are reduced, the problem with your argument is that it only works if the intruder is unarmed, given the availabity of guns in the US the odds are not in your favour, whilst in a civilised country where the used and ownership of guns are restricted the odds are that the intruder is unarmed, and whilst your right that he might have a baseball bat or equivilent any club type weapon is bulky and easier to defend against. if i was being burgled i would be more likely to dfefend myself knowing the intruder was not armed than if he was, because the problem is that shooting him isnt an option unless its in self defense and if it is in self defense he might be quicker. I would say that removing guns from untrained and unstable people is a sign of intelligence and maturity and not of weakness, the idea of hordes of idiots with guns is not something I would regard as a good idea unless they were tightly controlled and organised ie an army, I would agree that the US should keep its guns as long as those holding the guns were force to become members of a reconised civilian Militia as was the intention of the founding fathers, not some gun crazy nut who thinks the govenment is out to get him.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
our use of "we" and "everyone else" implies that this thread was being monitored and steered by people not participating
No it is a nod to the fact that only you seem to be on your side and all other posters against you. Steered? are the voices in your head at it again?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Christian Grass does not recognize reality as it really is, instead he goes with the "weakness is strength, less is more" doublethink.
No, his logic is sound, he says that in an de-gunned country the odds on meeting an armed man are reduce so the odd on being shot are reduced, the problem with your argument is that it only works if the intruder is unarmed, given the availabity of guns in the US the odds are not in your favour, whilst in a civilised country where the used and ownership of guns are restricted the odds are that the intruder is unarmed, and whilst your right that he might have a baseball bat or equivilent any club type weapon is bulky and easier to defend against. if i was being burgled i would be more likely to dfefend myself knowing the intruder was not armed than if he was, because the problem is that shooting him isnt an option unless its in self defense and if it is in self defense he might be quicker. I would say that removing guns from untrained and unstable people is a sign of intelligence and maturity and not of weakness, the idea of hordes of idiots with guns is not something I would regard as a good idea unless they were tightly controlled and organised ie an army, I would agree that the US should keep its guns as long as those holding the guns were force to become members of a reconised civilian Militia as was the intention of the founding fathers, not some gun crazy nut who thinks the govenment is out to get him.
No, christian thinks being weaker makes him stronger. Thats doublethink. Also, the right to bear arms is an individual right, period. Individuals have the right to own and operate the proper tools needed to defend his and his families life, liberty, and property. Plain and simple.
"The task of saving the earth's environment must and will become the central organizing principle of the post-Cold War world." Senator Al Gore Putting People First 1992 ------ "The sacrifice of personal existence is necessary to secure the preservation of the species." Adolph Hitler Mein Kampf 1923 ------ If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." O'Brien to Winston George Orwell 1984 1949
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
our use of "we" and "everyone else" implies that this thread was being monitored and steered by people not participating
No it is a nod to the fact that only you seem to be on your side and all other posters against you. Steered? are the voices in your head at it again?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Christian Grass does not recognize reality as it really is, instead he goes with the "weakness is strength, less is more" doublethink.
No, his logic is sound, he says that in an de-gunned country the odds on meeting an armed man are reduce so the odd on being shot are reduced, the problem with your argument is that it only works if the intruder is unarmed, given the availabity of guns in the US the odds are not in your favour, whilst in a civilised country where the used and ownership of guns are restricted the odds are that the intruder is unarmed, and whilst your right that he might have a baseball bat or equivilent any club type weapon is bulky and easier to defend against. if i was being burgled i would be more likely to dfefend myself knowing the intruder was not armed than if he was, because the problem is that shooting him isnt an option unless its in self defense and if it is in self defense he might be quicker. I would say that removing guns from untrained and unstable people is a sign of intelligence and maturity and not of weakness, the idea of hordes of idiots with guns is not something I would regard as a good idea unless they were tightly controlled and organised ie an army, I would agree that the US should keep its guns as long as those holding the guns were force to become members of a reconised civilian Militia as was the intention of the founding fathers, not some gun crazy nut who thinks the govenment is out to get him.
Alex hogarth wrote:
whilst in a civilised country where the used and ownership of guns are restricted
Brilliant !!!
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
No, christian thinks being weaker makes him stronger. Thats doublethink. Also, the right to bear arms is an individual right, period. Individuals have the right to own and operate the proper tools needed to defend his and his families life, liberty, and property. Plain and simple.
"The task of saving the earth's environment must and will become the central organizing principle of the post-Cold War world." Senator Al Gore Putting People First 1992 ------ "The sacrifice of personal existence is necessary to secure the preservation of the species." Adolph Hitler Mein Kampf 1923 ------ If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." O'Brien to Winston George Orwell 1984 1949
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
No, christian thinks being weaker makes him stronger.
No, that's deliberate ignorance, something you say because you can't actually answer me when I ask you questions. I have never said that, nor have you been able to prove that I have said this, directly or otherwise, when I have asked you to.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Individuals have the right to own and operate the proper tools needed to defend his and his families life, liberty, and property. Plain and simple.
Except for two things 1 - you don't have that right. The founding fathers would probably rip up the constitution if they saw what you've done with it 2 - I am better able to defend my life and property, than you are, precisely because your society is full of guns.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
No, christian thinks being weaker makes him stronger.
No, that's deliberate ignorance, something you say because you can't actually answer me when I ask you questions. I have never said that, nor have you been able to prove that I have said this, directly or otherwise, when I have asked you to.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Individuals have the right to own and operate the proper tools needed to defend his and his families life, liberty, and property. Plain and simple.
Except for two things 1 - you don't have that right. The founding fathers would probably rip up the constitution if they saw what you've done with it 2 - I am better able to defend my life and property, than you are, precisely because your society is full of guns.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
you don't have that right.
You don't tell me what my rights are.
"The task of saving the earth's environment must and will become the central organizing principle of the post-Cold War world." Senator Al Gore Putting People First 1992 ------ "The sacrifice of personal existence is necessary to secure the preservation of the species." Adolph Hitler Mein Kampf 1923 ------ If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." O'Brien to Winston George Orwell 1984 1949
-
No, christian thinks being weaker makes him stronger. Thats doublethink. Also, the right to bear arms is an individual right, period. Individuals have the right to own and operate the proper tools needed to defend his and his families life, liberty, and property. Plain and simple.
"The task of saving the earth's environment must and will become the central organizing principle of the post-Cold War world." Senator Al Gore Putting People First 1992 ------ "The sacrifice of personal existence is necessary to secure the preservation of the species." Adolph Hitler Mein Kampf 1923 ------ If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." O'Brien to Winston George Orwell 1984 1949
I would think that needing a gun would show that you are the weaker! Iam being to think that whilst most countries treat paranoia and delusion with drugs and specialized help, the US just seems to give them guns, turn them loose and tell them they are patriots.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Also, the right to bear arms is an individual right, period. Individuals have the right to own and operate the proper tools needed to defend his and his families life, liberty, and property. Plain and simple.
I understand this in a backward lawless society - although would have never suggested that the US was one such, I would think that the chaos of the unregulated west was enough to convince anyone that unfettered gun ownership does not bring about crime prevention and certainly increases death by gunshot ( I thought the declaration was written to enable the masses to form militia for national defense not against the rule of law!) [spelling]
-
I would think that needing a gun would show that you are the weaker! Iam being to think that whilst most countries treat paranoia and delusion with drugs and specialized help, the US just seems to give them guns, turn them loose and tell them they are patriots.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Also, the right to bear arms is an individual right, period. Individuals have the right to own and operate the proper tools needed to defend his and his families life, liberty, and property. Plain and simple.
I understand this in a backward lawless society - although would have never suggested that the US was one such, I would think that the chaos of the unregulated west was enough to convince anyone that unfettered gun ownership does not bring about crime prevention and certainly increases death by gunshot ( I thought the declaration was written to enable the masses to form militia for national defense not against the rule of law!) [spelling]
Alex hogarth wrote:
Iam being to think that whilst most countries treat paranoia and delusion with drugs and specialized help
Yeah, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
"The task of saving the earth's environment must and will become the central organizing principle of the post-Cold War world." Senator Al Gore Putting People First 1992 ------ "The sacrifice of personal existence is necessary to secure the preservation of the species." Adolph Hitler Mein Kampf 1923 ------ If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." O'Brien to Winston George Orwell 1984 1949
-
Alex hogarth wrote:
Iam being to think that whilst most countries treat paranoia and delusion with drugs and specialized help
Yeah, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
"The task of saving the earth's environment must and will become the central organizing principle of the post-Cold War world." Senator Al Gore Putting People First 1992 ------ "The sacrifice of personal existence is necessary to secure the preservation of the species." Adolph Hitler Mein Kampf 1923 ------ If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." O'Brien to Winston George Orwell 1984 1949
And yet both those examples allowed the personal ownership of guns, so your point is? oh and how about all the other countries that treat with drugs and help (for a list use "select distinct(country_name) from atlas where world > third" I know this excludes a lot of third world countries that do help these unfortunates but I wanted to keep the query to a level you would understand) ps does the old posting rule of "he who references nazi's first loses" still apply? because it still seems to be the last resort of the bankrupt. pps the nazi's came to power with the SUPPORT of the population and at no time until just before the defeat did popular support swing away, so against your point is? basically the right to bear arms doesnt stop you being enslaved, infact I cannot think of a single casde where the right to bear arms had an effect on enslavement. its a sop to the uneducated. it has little meaning other than a comfort blanket to the disposessed
modified on Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:10 AM
-
And yet both those examples allowed the personal ownership of guns, so your point is? oh and how about all the other countries that treat with drugs and help (for a list use "select distinct(country_name) from atlas where world > third" I know this excludes a lot of third world countries that do help these unfortunates but I wanted to keep the query to a level you would understand) ps does the old posting rule of "he who references nazi's first loses" still apply? because it still seems to be the last resort of the bankrupt. pps the nazi's came to power with the SUPPORT of the population and at no time until just before the defeat did popular support swing away, so against your point is? basically the right to bear arms doesnt stop you being enslaved, infact I cannot think of a single casde where the right to bear arms had an effect on enslavement. its a sop to the uneducated. it has little meaning other than a comfort blanket to the disposessed
modified on Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:10 AM
Alex hogarth wrote:
And yet both those examples allowed the personal ownership of guns
No they didn't. Absolutely not. They were socialist and communist also. You need to brush up on your history education (though thats implying you ever learned anything about history, ever).
"The task of saving the earth's environment must and will become the central organizing principle of the post-Cold War world." Senator Al Gore Putting People First 1992 ------ "The sacrifice of personal existence is necessary to secure the preservation of the species." Adolph Hitler Mein Kampf 1923 ------ If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." O'Brien to Winston George Orwell 1984 1949
-
Alex hogarth wrote:
And yet both those examples allowed the personal ownership of guns
No they didn't. Absolutely not. They were socialist and communist also. You need to brush up on your history education (though thats implying you ever learned anything about history, ever).
"The task of saving the earth's environment must and will become the central organizing principle of the post-Cold War world." Senator Al Gore Putting People First 1992 ------ "The sacrifice of personal existence is necessary to secure the preservation of the species." Adolph Hitler Mein Kampf 1923 ------ If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." O'Brien to Winston George Orwell 1984 1949
both countries had unlimted access upto the 20s then both banned handguns - germany because it was a requirement stated by the US and France and russia to prevent the white russians revolting yet neither banned rifles or other long guns, both of wish are more usefull in a rebellion. the fact othat they were socialist and comunist is irrelivent and I will put my knoweledge of history against yours anyday, i doubt if you know anything of the world outside your city oh and who won the war of 1812?