Is this hypocrisy? - DPChallenge Forums

01/08/2013 11:35:55 AM · #276

Originally posted by Venser:

Originally posted by Cory:
Safety or freedom. Which will you choose.
Why can't you have both? They are not mutually exclusive.

Actually they are, at least in this conversation.

You have one side that values freedoms and liberty over safety, and feel that they are simply accepting the risks of going out of their house - recognizing that guns are a MUCH lower threat than say, cars.

The other side of this values safety over freedoms and liberty, and feels that the loss of certain aspects of unrestricted freedoms are valuable in that they make it marginally safer to leave their house.

My feeling, of course is that if you feel that trading freedom for increased safety is a good idea, that you simply stay in your house, as otherwise you're clearly taking unnecessary risks. After all, it's pretty hard to argue that being locked in a padded room inside a deep bunker, and eating nothing but completely sterilized food is the safest possible way to live - but it seems to lack a certain something that I desire in my life.

In other words, there is a risk to living, embrace it, accept it, and go forward - to suggest that nibbling away at our freedoms will make enough of a difference in overall safety is a pretty bad argument IMO.

Heck, it's devolved into including accidents, and suggesting that it's our social responsibility to protect people from their own stupidity or carelessness!

01/08/2013 11:37:32 AM · #277

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Cory:
Safety or ~~freedom~~ . Which will you choose.

See, this is EXACTLY what I see happening. You consider freedom non-relevant. The only thing that matters to you is the show.

01/08/2013 11:39:06 AM · #278

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:
Safety or freedom. Which will you choose.

A stupid argument to make to folks who feel less safe AND less free in an environment with so many guns.

And I bet you FEEL really good about going through the airport too huh? Too bad it's all just a show.

01/08/2013 11:41:59 AM · #279

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Let's see, who would you rather take a bullet to the face? Guys like this, who need deadly weapons to play with like toys, and who are responsible for this country's inability to make sensible gun laws, or 5- and 6-year-olds in their kindergarten class?

Logic indeed.

Oh, and the feeling (re: your ignorance and attitude) is mutual.

Well, I suppose if I had to choose, I would say that the user of the gun should be more likely to be injured, given that the risk is chosen by that person.

Of course, I don't see any reason that we have to shoot either one in the face, and unlike you, I'd simply prefer that no-one is shot, AND we're still allowed to have firearms.

Your logic here is effectively "guns=people shot in face", which is about as sensable as knives="people stabbed in groin"

..

rooum

01/08/2013 11:43:47 AM · #280

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

well actually if we adopted an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth...I believe it would drastically reduce crime.

Ya know if a thief broke into a house and stole something....if he was found guilty cut his hand off. If he does it again..cut the other one off. Crooks would start getting the hint. (that would be a great way to control crime and allow us to have our freedoms)

That would work. If the thief broke in and stole your hand i guess. Which does happen a lot more than most people would think. I saw a film about it once.

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

01/08/2013 11:45:20 AM · #281

And as for Giffords being the voice of reason in the gun debate?

I think she's every bit as reasonable and impartial as Mr. Brady was before her.

In other words, why don't we have a group out there that's made up of people who can actually do this job on a basis that is something other than pure emotion?

You've got the NRA folks on one side, and the Brady/Giffords/Gun Control group on the other side.

Is it even possible anymore to have a conversation about something where people actually try to get to the middle? Or are we now unable to communicate in anything other than extreme left/right rhetoric?

Venser

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

01/08/2013 11:45:52 AM · #282

Originally posted by Cory:

Heck, it's devolved into including accidents, and suggesting that it's our social responsibility to protect people from their own stupidity or carelessness!

But we do that anyways with seat belts. They're now mandatory by law. Was that giving up freedom? Maybe, it all depends on how you define it. This is the angle I'm attacking the gun ownership. I would never argue against banning all guns, I own five rifles myself, but there needs to be stiffer restrictions on certain aspects with relation to firearms. The gravity of breaking certain laws in relation to gun violations would need to be increased in an attempt to stop the actual criminals out there also.

With the numbers our there, maybe there is an over proliferation of arms in the US that can be curtailed without the loss of "freedom".

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

01/08/2013 11:46:51 AM · #283

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Cory:
Safety or ~~freedom~~ . Which will you choose.

See, this is EXACTLY what I see happening. You consider freedom non-relevant. The only thing that matters to you is the show.

freedom is always relevent......

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

01/08/2013 11:50:23 AM · #284

how would you like the freedom of speach revoked....or how about freedom of religon

Paul

Leica SL

Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f/1.7 Aspherical MF Wide Angle - Black

01/08/2013 11:57:53 AM · #285

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

how would you like the freedom of speach revoked....or how about freedom of religon

Given the doctrine of some religious practice, I'd say those two things are quite often mutually incompatible.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/08/2013 11:58:26 AM · #286

By the way - here's a GREAT example of another right that is just trampled to shit.

//www.cnn.com/2013/01/08/justice/new-york-stop-and-frisk-ruling/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

I've been illegally searched in the past 12 months - quite literally for being white in a violent black neighborhood... It took 12 police cruisers, 20 cops, and a police helicopter to determine that I was taking photos, not dealing drugs - despite the $12,000 worth of photo gear in the passenger seat. (which they were sure to chimp the snot out of BTW, at least they didn't format my cards.)

I have a perception that the police are more interested in breaking the law than enforcing it, so any new laws just seem, to me, like new toys for them to violate me with.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/08/2013 12:00:33 PM · #287

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Yes, Sharia law is so freedom-promoting ...

01/08/2013 12:03:17 PM · #288

Originally posted by Venser:

Originally posted by Cory:
Heck, it's devolved into including accidents, and suggesting that it's our social responsibility to protect people from their own stupidity or carelessness!
But we do that anyways with seat belts. They're now mandatory by law. Was that giving up freedom? Maybe, it all depends on how you define it. This is the angle I'm attacking the gun ownership. I would never argue against banning all guns, I own five rifles myself, but there needs to be stiffer restrictions on certain aspects with relation to firearms. The gravity of breaking certain laws in relation to gun violations would need to be increased in an attempt to stop the actual criminals out there also.

With the numbers our there, maybe there is an over proliferation of arms in the US that can be curtailed without the loss of "freedom".

I don't think we should be required to wear seatbelts either... If I want to smash my face in and go through the windscreen, then so be it - that should be my right, although, admittedly that is a fairly reasonable restriction, especially when it comes to underage kids... But it's not like the guns are currently a free-for-all with no restrictions, there are laws that are equivalent to a seatbelt law (no felons, 18/21+, mental health, etc). So to compare the two is probably just as useful to my argument as it is to your own.

BTW: We have shown, more conclusively than most anything we have argued about here, that longer sentences do nothing to prevent crime, but do an excellent job at increasing revenue streams for the prison industry, and as such, I don't really see them as a deterrent or solution to any problem. More enforcement might be a fine idea, but more laws and longer prison terms probably won't help anything other than the budget of a few select organizations.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/08/2013 12:03:25 PM · #289

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

The weapons are not a dangerous product. The criminals that will get firearms whether their legal or not are dangerous.

...surely you aren't serious. Guns not dangerous, good grief.

When one considers the warning signs on electric shavers, toasters, hair dryers and other similar products that warn the user of the dangers of using same in the bathtub etc, surely you would think that a product that could blow your balls off might fall in the realm of dangerous items.

Just another man's point of view.

Ray

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/08/2013 12:06:45 PM · #290

Originally posted by Cory:

I don't think we should be required to wear seatbelts either... If I want to smash my face in and go through the windscreen, then so be it - that should be my right ...

And if the Highway Patrol officer who happens on the scene determines you weren't wearing a seat belt they should just cancel the ambulance call and let you die, right? It was your choice ...

01/08/2013 12:07:19 PM · #291

Originally posted by Cory:

BTW: I did the math on this incident - Let me tell you why there's never enough money for enforcement of important laws:

Cost to harass me and illegally search me for 1 hour:
20 cops @ $35 each = 700
12 cruisers @ $30 each = $600
1 helicopter @ $500 (at 1/2 hour) = $250

Total cost: $1550

01/08/2013 12:09:16 PM · #292

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:
I don't think we should be required to wear seatbelts either... If I want to smash my face in and go through the windscreen, then so be it - that should be my right ...

And if the Highway Patrol officer who happens on the scene determines you weren't wearing a seat belt they should just cancel the ambulance call and let you die, right? It was your choice ...

More or less, yeah. If you fail to take any measures to protect yourself, the logical conclusion is that you don't give a shit. Fair enough for sure.

(and we save tons of money by taking this approach as a society - we save on the ambulance, hospital bills, etc if the person is indigent, as are many of those who don't care if they see tomorrow or not..)

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

01/08/2013 12:11:17 PM · #293

Originally posted by Cory:

Safety or freedom. Which will you choose.

...One would think that they are not mutually exclusive.

Ray

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

01/08/2013 12:18:49 PM · #294

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
well actually if we adopted an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth...I believe it would drastically reduce crime.

Ya know if a thief broke into a house and stole something....if he was found guilty cut his hand off. If he does it again..cut the other one off. Crooks would start getting the hint. (that would be a great way to control crime and allow us to have our freedoms)

Yes, Sharia law is so freedom-promoting ...

I was not talking about the full sharia law here...There is a large portion of the law I do highly disagree with...for instance the way they treat women. It would definately be a pick and choose type of thing.

01/08/2013 12:20:25 PM · #295

Originally posted by Cory:

Hmmmmmmmmmmm I just found This and the numbers here don't seem to be quite as high as those you allude to.

On a different note... if it took 20 police officers to deal with you, then you truly must look right dangerous. :O)

Ray

Message edited by author 2013-01-08 17:24:26.

01/08/2013 12:23:40 PM · #296

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:
Safety or freedom. Which will you choose.

...One would think that they are not mutually exclusive.

Ray

They aren't. Until someone suggests removing/restricting freedoms to make them "feel" safer.

01/08/2013 12:25:25 PM · #297

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:

BTW: I did the math on this incident - Let me tell you why there's never enough money for enforcement of important laws:

Cost to harass me and illegally search me for 1 hour:
20 cops @ $35 each = 700
12 cruisers @ $30 each = $600
1 helicopter @ $500 (at 1/2 hour) = $250

Total cost: $1550

Hmmmmmmmmmmm I just found This and the numbers here don't seem to be quite as high as those you allude to.

On a different note... if it took 20 police officers to deal with you, then you truly must look right dangerous. :O)

Ray

Wages do not equal Cost.

Add in Insurance, Unemployment, Social Security, Retirement, Physical Fitness facilities, etc, and you come much closer to my number, which I *think* is actually a bit low.

As per my appearance - I'll just leave that determination to the dozen or more DPC'ers who've met me. ;)

Message edited by author 2013-01-08 17:26:05.

01/08/2013 12:32:45 PM · #298

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:
Safety or freedom. Which will you choose.

...One would think that they are not mutually exclusive.

Ray

They aren't. Until someone suggests removing/restricting freedoms to make them "feel" safer.

I don't want to rain on your parade my friend, but every day since the dawn of time, members of society have infringed on the perceived rights of the individual for the benefit of society as a whole.

I have listened to many individuals over the years clamour about their "Rights" ad nauseam but seldom have I heard anyone utter a word about "Responsibilities".

Rather sad that some are so self-centered that they completely forget about those around them.

Ray