ParanoiA

The idea of a right to ones own body is logically incoherent as ownership by definition applies to external entities (a horse doesn't own itself and a chair doesn't own itself, they simply ARE themselves... likewise with humans). Ownership implies a contract between two parties or entities, whereas a self is just one.

 

 

It’s plenty logically coherent by definition: used with a possessive to emphasize that someone or something belongs or relates to the person mentioned.

We’ve had plenty of these arguments in the context of abortion and when life beings. Is the person corporeal or consciousness? Is a person merely the summation of their body and organs, or does it exist separate as self awareness? Are they less of a person if they lack an arm, or trim their fingernails? We seem happy to infer the notion of separation between human biology and personhood, so there is absolutely an external “entity”, and thus a contract to be recognized between the person and their body by such thinking.

However you see it, it is a good idea to recognize the right to one’s self, their body, as their own as opposed to someone else, or their own. Control freaks will complicate the matter, however, since it is conducive to their ends to do so.

Additionally, the concept of freedom is implicit in your position, and your freedoms stop when they impinge upon the freedoms of others (your liberty throw a punch ends at the tip of my nose). You assert that drugs and suicide don't harm others and so should be permitted. However, that premise is false. When one chooses to take drugs or commit suicide or make other similar choices in life they DO have an impact on society and others.

 

But, of course, this is the fault of society. The United States has 2.3 billion acres claimed as their own, via flag planting and imaginary perimeter drawing. The rest of the world of humans has done the same thing, such that no one can behave and live without their choices said to “impact society” somewhere.

So, what moral obligation do we have to limit an impact your societies have gamed to create? You have no moral high ground or ethical purity to appeal to, only greed and over controlling fantasies of centralized human coercion. You create your own imperative to control others by fabricating an inherent link in which to later appeal to as your right to control by referencing the link you produced. Nicely played.

Even if you appeal to the ultimate, unavoidable, natural link between all living things, you still have yet to argue how that creates the right to govern and coerce based on that observation. By that measure, behavior in India affects life across the globe, and therefore creates the right to coerce that country – and all life really. All of us, slaves to each other, built on the observation our behaviors and choices impact each other.

It’s a valid observation, but useless to freedom based governing. Appeals to societal impact serve all freedom deniers, including conservatives looking to deny marriage equality.

Most obvious is the overall drain on resources and healthcare that would also be an issue. Drugs also tend to lead to more violent anti-social behaviors and consequently higher crime, illness, need for additional services for housing or food assistance, lack of contribution back to the economy helping them in the first place, etc.

 

 

When someone buys a cheeseburger or pays to get their car washed, are they “draining” resources, or are they *participating* in a market? By your logic, the more people who engage in a market, the more the market is harmed. As if more people buying cheeseburgers somehow hurts the cheeseburger market. That is fabulously incorrect. The more people who engage in a market, the larger the market generally becomes, the more advanced it gets, the better it gets at providing the goods and services related to it. Look at heart surgery, M&M’s, macaroni and cheese, computers, smart phones…etc.

I think you mean non-payers that participate in a market. Again, another imperative society created itself, and then references back to it to dictate the behavior of others.

It goes something like…‘We insist on you getting healthcare even if you can’t pay for it. And now, since we do that, we have a right to dictate your life terms because you might take us up on that offer. We don’t know which of you will do that, so none of you can do whatever you want without our approval’.

Again, nicely played you benevolent authoritarians.

Further, you have not shown that drug use will “tend” to these things – only drug abuse. You’re invoking the same bias that police and prosecutors possess being exposed solely to the ill effects of drug abuse instead of acknowledging the greater responsible drug use and non-addictive enjoyment.

Anyone who drinks a beer, enjoys a glass of wine or smokes a joint is using drugs and you cannot show that they cause higher crime and illness – only abusers. And how much of that crime is related to and created by prohibition in the first place? (Which, of course, would be yet even more self created imperatives)

Thank you sir. Very well explained, as usual.

Not sure I'm posting this in the right subforum or not, so please feel free to move this to a better spot.

Been getting fairly frustrated lately with the inconsistency of information regarding the scientific method, inductive reasoning, theory, hypothesis, proof vs. disproof...

I thought you guys gave me a pretty good handle on this back when I used to frequent this forum, but increasingly, I'm growing suspicious of what I believe. And Google searching is producing mixed results.

1) I thought is was clear that science creates hypotheses via induction - that we formulate ideas about how things work by observing phenomena and inferring broad principles. We cannot deduct because we must imagine and infer how things work, and then test our ideas.

We deduct when we use hypotheses to describe how things will behave - we apply those principles, or hypotheses.

So, induction to formulate hypotheses, and deduction to apply hypotheses. And I thought this was simply the natural state of affairs since we have no objective view of the universe or reality. We are inside the proverbial test box, so we are naturally limited to inductive reasoning. And this is why all theories and hypotheses are replaceable by better ones.

2) I thought science does not prove things. That when we test our hypotheses, we are testing to disprove, or to falsify never to prove or verify (going back to the inherent limit of induction). I thought there was no truth in science. That it doesn't matter if a hypothesis has been tested one million times and has failed to be falsified, that we cannot make the leap to "truth" and "proof" despite how small and insignificant the leap may be, as that would invoke "faith" and science doesn't use faith. There is no 100% verifiable truth. Again, this is why all theories and hypotheses are replaceable by better ones.

3) Finally, I thought theories were formulated by hypotheses. That we test numerous hypotheses, and then formulate a theory that uses them. That a theory is rigorously tested because it is made up of hypotheses that were rigorously tested.

These ideas and belief feel completely natural to me. What do I have right, and what do I have wrong?

 

I don't think I'm missing the point. You offer an atypical example of someone getting by. What's the use in offering an atypical example? It's not representative of the bulk of the people out there.

 

 

 

I'm not missing the point. Doing all the "right" things, but with a more realistic income situation instead of an outlier, shows that the poverty level is about right. Your argument that poor people are screwing up somehow doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

Correct, it *needs* to be the bulk of the people out there. Stop letting them believe that they must shop, work and live just like everybody else, to the same standard. Stop letting them believe that sewing their own clothes is cruel and unusual punishment. Stop letting them believe that gardening is too much to ask. Extreme couponing is another example of how people plan and use their limited resources to maximum effect.

The point in offering an atypical example is to demonstrate what is possible when you you drop the necessity to be the same, to be typical. If you require other humans to compare yourself with to determine if you're suffering, then you're not suffering. If I don't have any food, no heat or air, then I don't need to compare myself with anyone, I am suffering. I lack the necessities for survival.

If I have to compare myself with others in order to figure that out, then I'm merely competing and using social leverage to my advantage. It's not that I'm a bad person, but it's how I've been taught to think. That needs to change, in my opinion.

Now..property taxes average at $900 a year in Vegas, insurance can jump around but if I use mine as an example it's 1800 a year, so that's still $225 a month they must come up with - unless they just decided not to have home insurance, which is always possible.

I'll get back to this in a bit and complete my response to your post...I've spent too much time on here today. This government job takes up all my surfing time...

But again, I am not sure what the argument really is. You are not poor because with available resources you can survive? That is not the definition of poverty. Or that compared to people in third world countries you are still well off? That does not make much sense in terms of understanding poverty in industrialized nations.

I'm glad you brought this up. What is the point of providing welfare then? If your measuring stick is simply disparity between the well off and the less well off then millionaires could advocate welfare due to existing billionaires.

I thought the point of welfare was to provide for people who could not provide the basic necessities to survive for themselves and their family. A trailer with food and clothes in it provides that. I'll even entertain medical for the sake of argument here.

Why do you think welfare in industrialized nations should provide someone with a better life than basic necessity? What is it about "industrialization" that suddenly makes that intolerable? Appearances? I don't get this part...

Again - the example is atypical. The couple both work and are temporarily living in a smaller house so they can build a much bigger one:

 

"The Tiny House is temporary. The end goal, they say, is to save enough to one day build a bigger home...In the end, it’s going to measure 1,000 square feet and we’re going to build it on the same land."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/living-large-in-a-tiny-house.html

 

Which plenty of people do: e.g http://www.homeimprovementpages.com.au/article/can_i_live_in_a_shed

 

6.8 million Americans live in small dwellings permanently. They're called trailers. They're generally undesirable places to live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailer_park

http://www.pbs.org/peoplelikeus/resources/stats.html

Right, undesirable is not suffering. Undesirable is not a good enough reason to take from someone else to improve your position. Undesirable is exactly what I'd expect. If you desire better, then take responsibility for yourself and come up with a plan. Suffering is quite different.

Trailers are not a good alternative to the "tiny house". The tiny house was designed for much greater efficiency, if you heard them talking about how they insulated the place. Trailers are good though to protect you from the elements, heat and cool, place to sleep, cook food, watch TV and all that.

And I pointed out how the family of the tiny house has a plan for bigger things in my post to swansont. Planning. Taking control of their situation instead of letting things happen to them. That was another point on how they differ from the typical poor person. I know they're atypical - that's precisely why I'm pointing all this out. Get out of your box, your ideas of "normal", think for yourself, take responsibility for your life and plan and execute unique ideas that may work for you. Being atypical is precisely what we should advocate.

I mean really...I should provide welfare because someone insists on being typical? Because gardening, making your own bread, sewing your own clothes is just beyond the pale and cruel? No, I think our consumerism and high standard of living has gone to our freakin' heads. As if we're just above all that and can't have that kind of survival methodology going on here.

To put a number on extreme poverty in the US (i.e. that is they fall below the UN global threshold for extreme poverty - that is even if they lived in Eritrea their income would deem them to be in poverty) there are approximately 1.5 million people in the US who earn less than $2 a day - and it's a number which is increasing.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

That's less than 3K a year, and I would absolutely label them as impoverished. But there 4.3 million on welfare and 46 million on food stamps.

From that link:

Total Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job = 40

Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job = 7

Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than the average salary of a U.S. Teacher = 9

And when you consider that people living off of $8 per hour, or $12 per hour, or the average teacher are losing some of that income to provide the same level for someone else doing *nothing*.

Contrary to your generalization that welfare most recipients don't generally need welfare, it seems that most (73%) people who receive federal welfare are either elderly or disabled. Are there people on welfare who probably shouldn't be? Of course - and measures to prevent people who don't need welfare getting it should be enforced. Is it a majority? No. The notion that wastage in the welfare system stems largely from people who don't need welfare being given extravagant benefits doesn't seem to ring true, when you look at the data.

Glaring problem with that data...entitlement is not welfare. Social Security is often considered an entitlement, even though the recipients are typically those who paid into the system, which is not welfare. Did you verify whether or not your entitlement data is including or excluding such non-welfare related costs? That's a biggie.

And despite an overall trend of increasing welfare spending since the 1950's, after 2010, it's actually trending down, post GFC, despite a growing population. The notion that welfare spending is "out of control" also doesn't seem to ring true either, when you look at the data. http://www.usfederal...elfare Spending

Not that you said so, but just so we're clear, I never said welfare spending is "out of control". I actually don't think it is. There is a long list of places to cut spending that would save far more dollars than more welfare reform could potentially save. It should be dealt with, eventually, but it's a bit far down the list of priorities in my humbled opinion. My position is more about the perception of poverty and societal paradigms about survival and what thriving looks like.

They bought a foreclosure home and two vehicles with money earned when he was on active duty. That's a nice "off the books" advantage that helps — a lot. They didn't get those making $14k. Las Vegas is a slightly cheaper than average place to live. Also, it says he's a student and still in the army,which raises the question of whether he's getting other perks from that — free campus bus routes, perhaps? Health care help from being in the military? Moving expenses to get to LV in the first place? There is also no mention of side income, such as from her blog. Just the army stipend.

 

So make sure if you do a comparison it's apples-to-apples. Can your family of 4 live on $14k if you have transportation costs, rent to pay and live in a more expensive city? Not if these folks are just getting by.

True, but you're missing the point with the details. The point being...use your imagination, get outside of the box, stop being so quick to mark yourself "destitute" just because you might have to do things differently than the "norm". You're rarely as destitute and impoverished as you think you are. I see this as a problem with paradigms as much as anything else.

That family that gets by on 14K a year has a lot to teach Americans. So the "norm" is to buy sliced bride, prepared box meals, buy a nice house that is asthetically pleasing, a pretty car, 52" big screen...so what? Make your own bread, your own pasta, your own sauce, question why you think you *need* a pretty house and car and all the bells and whistles. Why do you need brand new cabinets and flooring in order to not be "destitute"? Most of all..question why you think you're impoverished because your stuff isn't "nice" but rather "functional".

There are only about 3 houses in my neighborhood with gardens. Some of these poor are home all damn day long...why not cultivate? Grow something. Why are they crying about food and getting food stamps while they let a 1/4 acre lot of soil go completely to waste? We don't appear to expect anything out of them. If you can't get food the "normal" or "standard" way, then oh my, you must be just so impoverished, let us keep you from having to get off your ass and innovate, just go to the grocery store and never challenge your paradigms and never attempt to do anything differently to take care of your needs.

Hell there's one guy in my neighborhood with his own chickens. I've heard my neighbors bitch about it, and I'm thinking...we're poor over here man, the guy is trying to feed his family, why aren't more of us doing this? We get so caught up with our processed, clean society, cookie cutter neighborhoods with regulations to keep every property essentially exactly the same. They ruin the ability for people to use their land to their benefit, even if they had the initiative to do so, all because we don't want to have to see the "chaos" of farming next door. Stuck up Americans..

It's not like I'm saying "hey, that guy goes without food for 3 days, why can't you?" Those people aren't suffering in that tiny house. But you know what they're doing that is different from any of the working or lazy poor that I've been around? Planning. They have a plan and they are executing it. They are not just taking each day, one at a time, scrounging and scheming to get by. They are taking control of their situation, making plans, adjusting their thinking, taking responsibility for themselves.

I don't think we have a realistic measuring stick for poverty here in America. And the impoverished are largely not empowering themselves, rather are content to be validated by society that they are in need of assistance, and it isn't their fault. It's just easier. I believe this sabotages otherwise innovative people.

I've always found the concept of American poverty as rather humorous. Poor Americans can only be considered poor comparing them to other well off Americans. It requires a comparison because people with a house, air conditioning, car, food, clothing, TV, cell phones, game systems and etc can only be considered "poor" when compared to someone else with a nice house, nice air conditiong, nice car, nice food, great clothing, incredible TV, the latest cell phones and game systems.

From my experience - a class of which I've spent most of life - they typically have the same stuff as well off Americans...except that it's asthetically displeasing and certainly not optimal. The house paint is chipping, stains on the floors, ugly windows and ineffecient air conditiong. The car is a junker, requires holding your mouth just right and punching the dash for the radio to work. The food is Always Save, the clothing is Wal-Mart specials and garage sales. The TV is a hand me down and the game system was purchased with an income tax windfall achieved with Earned Income Credit. That sort of thing..

I don't understand the American mindset of poor. We're ok, folks. Really. Stop listening to the whiners, they're just trying to weasel into your wallet. They have no imagination and no inclination.

Take this family of four in Las Vegas, Nevada. They live on 14K per year....well. Guess what the poverty threshold for a family of four in the US in 2012 was.....23K. They make almost *half* of the poverty threshold, and they don't take government assistance and don't need it. They have imagination and innitiative. They don't feel sorry for themselves and collect checks, while bitching in their government paid house about how the deck is stacked against them.

It's America. It's easy to make it here. You have a lot of flexibility still, even with our restrictive legal structure, to execute life and survive in a variety of ways.

Americans seem to have lost a lot of ingenuity and creativity. They can't get outside of themselves to realize how ridiculous they are.

I make about 7K over the threshold, so we're not impoverished, but we are considered poor (median is 50K) though it doesn't feel like it at all. Like that family of four in Vegas, we are cash only, no payments of any kind - but that also means we have no shiny awesome car, no 52" big screen TV. We don't have the max cable package and our house is three different colors with a mixture of vinyl siding and rotting old wood siding. So what. We haven't been happier in our lives, and I used to bring home 66K a year living on the "nice" side of town with twice the living space.

It's all in how you approach your situation. Why should we continue to allow Americans to pretend as if they are impoverished so much that they need to take other people's income just to make it? It's bullshit. We have a handful of *actual* poor people here - a small group of genuine impovershed that really do need help from others. But when I live around and read about people living off less than 23K a year, in some cases almost half as much - happily - then I have to question the threshold and the inclination of those using it to get a government check.

Overtone, here's an example of what it looks like when you support your claims. I claimed the American left supports gun control and the right supports gun rights. You got all weird and decided it might be fun to pretend like that is questionable. So here's some support of what is obvious to everyone but you:

1927 – Mailing Firearms act of 1927 – republican majority,

1934 – National Firearms Act of 1934 – Split congress, 73^rd congress, NRA supports the bill – opposition from southern and western states over 2^nd amendment concerns

1938 – Federal Firearms Act of 1938 – democrat supermajority, 75^th congress, NRA supports the bill

1968 – Gun Control Act of 1968, democrat supermajority in the senate, major majority in house, 90^th congress, signed by Lyndon B Johnson, Endorsed by the NRA to the dismay of gun rights activists.
Unable to find a roll call vote (In fact, it seems extremely difficult to find any roll call votes for the 90^th, 91^st and 92^nd US congress) Despite democrat supermajorities, I do believe republicans basically supported this bit of gun control in addition to the NRA.

1976 – DC Council in 12-1 vote restricting resident’s access to handguns, 12 democrats, 1 republican on the council, NRA does not support this – turning point in NRA gun rights support.

1986 – Firearms Owner’s Protection Act, A bill to protect firearm owners’ constitutional rights, civil liberties, and rights to privacy, sponsored by republican Senator James McClure, signed by Ronald Reagan.
Unable to find a roll call vote.

1993 – HR 1025 Brady Bill, democrat majority in house and senate, 103^rd congress, NRA lobbies against this bill
House: Yeas – 238 (183 D’s / 54 R’s) Nays – 189 (69 D’s / 119 R’s)
Senate: Yeas – 63 (47 D’s / 16 R’s) Nays – 36 (6 D’s / 30 R’s)

1994 – HR 3355 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act or Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, Signed by Bill Clinton.
House: 235 yeas (188 D’s / 64 R’s) 195 Nays (64 D’s / 131 R’s)
Senate: 61 yeas ( 55 D’s / 6 R’s ) 38 Nays ( 2 D’s / 36 R’s)

 

2005 - The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits) – 109^th congress, republican majority in Senate and House, signed by GWB, NRA supports the bill
Senate: 65 yeas (49 R’s, 15 D’s) and 31 Nays (2 R’s / 29 D’s)
House: 283 yeas (223 R’s / 59 D’s) and 144 Nays (4 R’s / 140 D’s)

 

2009 – Credit Card act of 2009 contained an Amendment added by republicans to lift restriction on guns in national parks. The act passed House and Senate, signed by Barack Obama.
Senate: 90 Yeas (53 D’s / 35 R’s) 5 Nays (1 D / 4 R’s)
House: 279 Yeas (104 D’s / 175 R’s) 147 Nays (145 D’s / 2 R’s)

The history of gun rights in America shows a democrat-republican divide starting around the 1970’s. Same with the NRA. American “lefties” are indeed for gun control as American “righties” are clearly against it. This is basic information that I really didn’t need to dig up for you, but here it is anyway. Took me a long damn time to find those roll call votes…

And, I did not include the myriad of state legislation on gun control, in which California, New York and Illinoise would provide a mountain of more evidence of democrat-lefty sponsored gun control measures. Again, more common knowledge that I didn't really need to dig up for you..

Now, you still need to support your claim about the NRA exploiting children and using victims. You can't point to the NRA ad charging Obama with hypocrisy and pretend like that's exploiting children when the context *is* armed guards protecting children in schools. *AND* they didn't parade his children on stage with a press conference dog and pony show with their emotionalism on display. They charged him with hypocrisy just like outed gay republicans are repeatedly charged with hypocrisy over their views over gay rights. It's a fair argument, and well done.

In case you forgot, the NRA ad was in response to Obama's comments on Meet The Press in December:

"I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools, and I think the vast majority of the Amer

ican people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem," Obama said. "And, look, here's the bottom line. We're not going to get this done unless the American people decide it's important."

...deleted...wrong forum

Then it's an invalid comparison, as I noted. W's behavior while signing actual bills establishing authoritarian impositions on our civil liberties, is not comparable with Obama's theatrics at staged press conferences. You were comparing apples and oranges, and denying that one of them grows on trees.

 

And the body of your posting here is simply reiteration of that basic and fundamentally invalid comparison. An emotional and irrational comparison, btw.

 

What you posted was an accusation that "one side" of the issue was doing that, and not the other. And further, that that circumstance was some kind of argument against the actual legislation proposed.

 

You are only offended by "one side" of your imaginary division. If you were equally offended by whatever side was using irrational and emotional appeals, you would be lambasting the NRA for their scummy TV ads involving children (two different posters have brought them to your attention) and cooperating with us lefties in getting some decent politics done. Instead, you make yourself an emotional and irrational obstacle to reasonable and effective government altogether.

 

So I was correct in pointing out that you were posting delusion, and comparing fantasy with reality as if they were equivalent supports for opinion. How does that indicate a lack of understanding on my part?

And as repeatedly observed, with examples ranging from 9/11 to the recent NRA ads exploiting children (Obama's and others), this is a delusion of yours taht you have allowed to dominate your thinking and political response. You haven't, for example, mentioned a single example of any lefty doing anything like that. You haven't recognized the NRA's behaviors. Your silly claim that "democrats" (capitalization intended?) are "particularly prone" to that universal and reliably rightwing Republican employed tactic has no "logic and reason" behind it - or any evidence either. it's some propaganda bs you picked up from wingnut talk radio, would be my guess. Or Fox? They broadcast stuff like that a lot.

 

You quite obviously haven't, as proven by your nonsense about the "administrative left". The current administration is center right, and the US left overall is not predominantly focused on gun control (the left has a long tradition of favoring gun rights, clear back to Marx and Engels). Why do you not know these basic facts?

 

but on topic:

No more than when you ban carrying grenades and rpgs. That basic principle is long established, fully agreed to by the whole of US society (including every Republican president on record), consistent with the 2nd Amerndment, and not some recent imposition by - what was your bizarre Fox term - "lefties and democrats".

 

So is universal background checks - reading the poll numbers, apparently most Americans thought they were already in place (92% favor them, only 56% think gun control laws should be tightened - at least that 36% difference apparently thought they were already in force).

 

So aside from wingnut emotional responses to Obama's press conferences, are there any objections to the proposed gun control measures emerging from Biden's task force?

 

btw: That frame wrongfoots the question: the issue would not be gun violence compared with gun prevalence, but violence in general compared with gun prevalence. Violence is not bad [because it employs a gun, implying it would be better otherwise.

Ok, so you're *not* going to support your false claim....we won't be doing any discussing until you do. When you do, I'll be happy to address this nonsensical mess of a post of yours. Clearly, you are only here for combat with your over the top criticism of all ideas and beliefs that are not yours.

I'll still play though once you support your false claim that the NRA trots out victims and uses them to advance their agenda. The latest NRA ad about Obama and his kids might hurt a little, but it's child protection that is at issue and it's standard criticism of government hypocrisy...you know, like how republican congressmen are hypocrites for their fancy government healthcare while they deny such to the poor by voting against Obamacare? Or all the republican congressmen that get caught being gay after standing against same-sex marriage? Yeah, it's personal, but that didn't stop the hypocrisy charge and no one was crying about how "repugnant" it was.

Show me the victim exploitation by the NRA, as you claimed "both sides" do it...show me the emotional propaganda theatre.

Meanwhile, here's Matt Welch putting it much better than I ever could...

http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/18/white-house-gun-policy-like-ignorant-emo

 

It is bad enough to make hasty and inappropriate legislation in the name of dead kids. It is bad enough to constantly formulate and sell policy via individual anecdote. It's bad enough to draft pre-Tween children for the

. But all three at once? The word that comes to mind is infantile.

 

I don't know what the hell happened up there. It didn't look like that in my edit box.

And you are contrasting that with what? Some imaginary future gun control bill signing behaviors of Obama?

 

btw: The Patriot Act specifically was not my reference, but yours. I am not so restricted, in referring to W or anyone else.

 

bbtw: I am not the one restricting the one side of the "both sides" delusion to the NRA, either.

 

I'm contrasting that with what I started out with, line one, of this exchange...since you don't read, here's a source with video too.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/01/president-announces-executive-actions-for-gun-control.html

As I said before, it's chickenshit to use little kids and offensive as hell considering none of his "23 points" do *anything* to stop another Adam Lanza. 

Show me the NRA ads that you claim do the same thing.  Or are you still lost in the conversation?  As I've said, both sides do it all the time.  However in this case, it is currently one side.  The democrat completely-full-of-crap-and-they-know-it side.  The hurry-up-and-pass-some-ideological-bullshit-before-the-emotional-wave-runs-out side. 

 

So I really have to go watch five hours of Fox just to find the latest specifically NRA circus act? How about we just point to that deeply and profoundly dishonest TV ad contrasting the armed guards protecting Obama's kids with an imaginary version of the recommended gun control measures. Nothing on the "other side" (deception) is any worse.

 

Yes, when you make profoundly false statements, I will expect you to prove it.  Take it back, or go watch five hours of Fox news.  Do not make false statements if you don't like proving them.  And this is something, considering I'm never one to send people searching all over place to verify things they've said.  It takes quite a blatantly, obviously false claim to get me to do that. 

 

No, it was not. Go back and reread your own posting, which you repeated with emphasis in response to my objection. Your point was that one of the two imaginary sides you set up for this discussion is using emotional appeals and staged theatrical propaganda techniques to trump reason here,   and the other of your two imaginary sides is not. You emphasized the contrast, the ethical inferiority of the one side, how it disgusts you.

 

Uh, yes it was.  Here's a recap since you didn't read it the first time...although your summary fits nice too.  Yes, emotional appeals and staged theatrical propaganda offend the hell out of anyone with any moral or ethical backbone whatsoever.

By ParanoiA:

 

And the dog and pony show continues...

This is another example of how this is about ideological opportunity, not to "save children". 

But that doesn't stop the Obama administration from using children from that very school to shield the outcries of his overreach.  How freaking offensive.   

More "for the children" emotional crap that does nothing for the children, rather it provides cover for executive overreach and cowards that don't want to debate honestly.  Trot out the victims democrats...just like you always do when you can't win on the issues and everyone knows you're full of sh!t. 

 

Yeah, like I said, trotting out victims is a favorite democrats are particularly prone to doing.  I see it from all sides of any given cause, and it's predictable and prolific, but especially a favorite of lefties.  Sometimes for good reason though I'll have to admit, after all, the emotional pain and suffering of injustice does involve victims that need to be seen.  The difference is when they are being used to take the place of rational thought and exploited to defend a wave of emotional law making...like gun control when we have a murder problem. 

 

I pointed out that this perception, the basis of your disgust and judgment,  is delusion, amnesia,  and failure to perceive what is in front of your face and has been for many years now. Not only is the world not divided in that manner, but the two sides you imagine do not differ and contrast in that respect.

 

And I'm asking you to demonstrate your point.  I think you're wrong.  I do not see the NRA doing these things.  Show me how they do these things or stop making the claim.  It's simple, really.

 

Except that "the left" did not engage in such deluded behavior, either after 9/11 or now. (Neither did the Democrats, but set that aside for the moment).

 

Yeah, see your lost here, again.  I can't keep up with you losing your place in the conversation.  That was a hypothetical that is supposed to help you understand those you disagree with.  I didn't say the left engaged in that behavior, and certainly not after 9/11, I was using conservatives and GWB.  I'm not sure what you even read, now. 

I shaped a hypothetical scenario that should violate your sensibilities in order to demonstrate how my sensibilities, and others like me, could be interpreted.  If you don't want to understand "the other side" then why are you here?  What is the point of discourse and discussion if you don't have any intention of comprehending the concerns and objections of those who disagree on a complicated, important issue?

I shared why we are suspicious, with logic and reason.  If your only goal is combat, then I'll happily bow out.  I have no interest in arguing for argument's sake. 

 

And the position of my little corner is that disarming citizens has not been put on the table and reasonable political leverage will keep it off, so no big worry as long as we can stay alert and keep the likes of W out of office (will we get a little help there, next time? );  meanwhile those ineffective measures are also essentially harmless - there's no need to get all worked up over high capacity magazine restrictions and the like, we did fine for two hundred years without that kind of gear and who cares? There might even be some marginal gain in public safety, at essentially no cost in liberty.

 

You are reducing the rights to bear arms when you limit magazine sizes, and ban rifles that look "assault-like" and skeery... 

But I'm not terribly concerned about magazine sizes actually, only offended that they use little kids and post tragedy emotional tidal waves to pass these laws.  It makes me suspicious when people use children to shield them, similar to how to we are pushing our bills onto our kids, and their kids and their kids...I think it's chickenshit for each generation not to pay for themselves.  And when I argue to stop pushing the debt limit up, to stop spending and borrowing and pushing the debt onto our kids, and start paying our bills, I'm told I am "irrational" and don't care about poor people or healthcare.  As if it's rational to think we can just borrow and borrow and print and borrow and print and borrow and make payments that are equivalent to paying 2 dollars a year on a $100,000 home mortgage while whining about how "brutal" it is... 

 

So you planning on doing that, any time soon?

 

I have.  My issue is with the method the gun controlling administrative left is using to exploit a tragedy.  I have several friends that believe strongly in gun control, and I disagree with them but I appreciate that they at least get my position and don't characterize me as a bad person.  I think they're nuts, they think I'm nuts.  We're both probably right about that part.

 

It really does make sense to burn it and recover the energy (the energy recovery part is why it's expensive)

What makes energy recovery so expensive? I've always been attracted to the idea of burning waste and redirecting the heat for useful purposes. Can this be achieved more efficiently on a smaller scale?

But the qualification is not accurate, as I noted. People who use such displays (9/11 provided a very clear example) are currently on "both sides" (deception) of the debate - predominantly on the NRA side, actually.

Wrong, 9/11 victims were *not* on display while George Bush signed the Patriot Act. He was flanked by Congressmen, FBI and etc - not victims that we are not allowed to counter or question lest we be heartless, selfish animals of privacy. He was surrounded by people we routinely question as even human beings. Show me the NRA victim dog and pony show you claim happened or is happening.

The common link between 9/11 and Sandy Hook and the predictable "both sides do it" is the emotion component to getting something done swiftly - and 66 democrats dessented and didn't fall for it. Just like Sandy Hook, the push was to act, act, act, no matter whose liberties were to be compromised.

The uncommon link between 9/11 and Sandy Hook was that the NRA and George Bush administration did not hide behind victims of 9/11 when signing it into law. There were no parade of sobbing victim's families standing behind him.

Obama used victims of Sandy Hook in his dog and pony show. That was my point and I'm not going to let you forget it. I'm offended by that, especially when what he signed under their cover does *nothing* to stop another Adam Lanza. Adam Lanza would have still successfully shot up that school with all of these new laws and recommendations in place. Morally bankrupt to use those kids that way.

 

Which doesn't match your description - a relevant point, because the recommendations of the task force would not necessarily interfere with that Alabama woman. Hence, in part, the inability of the NRA and related wingies to employ such examples as described - they don't want to provide the opportunity for the Biden recommendations to be seen as innocuous or without serious constraint on gun owners, in such emotional and memorable circumstances.

 

Actually it does match my description because she successfully defended her family with a gun. I know it's not on the chopping block, but it's still an emotional appeal with little kids "Please don't take my mommy's gun away Mr President". Granted, an effective display would require a quick google search for the latest victims of violent crime where the victim didn't have a gun and then use their children to ask the president, or gun-control advocates why it was good for their mommy or daddy not to be armed.

Seriously, if the President can trot out victims that would *not* be saved by his executive actions and recommendations, then why can't the NRA trot out victims that would not be denied by his executive actions and recommendations? Give me a break. Emotion is emotion, and the victims are out there, and they're not being used and very well could be. If they ever were, I would be just as offended.

It would not be that difficult to find a victim denied a gun because of previous non-violent convictions in their life (like drugs), unable to protect themselves and their children. It would not be that difficult to find victims that fit these news laws and recommendations and use them for commercials.

 

Yes we were, among other matters much worse, and no: what I posted there is quite true of that time. It's still true, actually.

 

You made the claim, now prove it. Prove that "free speech, not properly controlled" was considered the reason why we suffered 9/11 and that uncontrolled speech was dangerous and could cause more 9/11's. Prove that.

That's what I challenged, and I still call bullshit. It was *not* even remotely an issue and you know it.

Instead, privacy rights were violated to record speech - not control speech - that was previously illegal. We were told it was necessary to "protect America from another terrorist attack". Since Republicans and GWB have never been big proponents of civil rights, the Patriot Act was viewed as suspicious and overreaching by the left - and they were correct, it was, and still is. The supreme court has agreed with them too on certain parts of the Act. The left interpreted this as GWB exploiting a tragedy to advance an agenda, just as the right largely feels about Obama exploiting Sandy Hook to advance an agenda.

Again..."both sides do it" is not rare, and very predictable. Almost as predictable as the denials by their followers...

 

As I noted, it was very difficult to get the attention of the faction now loudest in defense of gun rights. It still is, apparently. The situation is not, as claimed, "obvious to everyone".

 

No, I did *not* claim the situation currently is "obvious to everyone". Prove that claim while you're busy proving the previous false one above.

I said it *would* be obvious to everyone if GWB had previously made speeches and been recorded as being hostile to "uncontrolled speech" followed later by a tragedy in which it is decided that "uncontrolled speech" caused the tragedy and that executive orders and a task force need to be set up to "do something now" and to "act on uncontrolled speech". It would be obvious to these current gun control clowns that GWB was exploiting a tragedy to advance an agenda on controlled speech.

That's how Sandy Hook looks to many of us. Of all the problems and blame that could be assigned, "gun control" was mined out of that mess as the leading cause, the leading legal target to prevent gun violence in the future. We look at that excuse and say "WTF?" Just like democrats and the left would look at speech control as the leading target to prevent more 9/11's as "WTF?".

It's actually fairly easy to see the point and concern of "the other side". Even gun control nuts come to their conclusions mostly from honest analysis. It's complicated, and I think we all have the capability of seeing the point the other side presents. We tend to think everyone oversimplifies and reaches to ideology for guidance, when really, most of us see the complexity of a given issue and came to a conclusion that acknowledges imperfection. Most of us did this long ago.

When Sandy Hook happened, I audited what I believe. You can view my posts on the matter. I had to rethink things, and I had to be sure I was standing for the right thing. I have done that, and again I rest on my previous conclusions...that gun rights and sovereignty they provide trump the occassional massacre. It is imperfect, I acknowledge that. But it is more perfect than disarming law abiding citizens, or reducing their capacity to defend themselves with silly restrictions with magazine sizes, banning 'assault rifles' while eqivalent rifles still exist but don't "look" like an "assault rifle" (only a politician can pimp such nonsense) and etc.

Anyone who thinks these measures do anything is not thinking at all. It is not hard, drop the ideology and use common sense. Magazine size? While murdering unarmed people? Really? It takes one to three seconds to change a clip. Adam Lanza changed clips at least 4 times (Approx 150 bullets fired, 30 rounds per clip)

 

And all the "both sides do it" rhetoric is laid aside,

 

 

in the rare case where it would be accurately employed. Can you remember back even a little ways, and hear the faint echoes of "911! 911!" during the largest expansion and overreach of Executive Branch power since Lincoln in the middle of the Civil War?

 

Sure I do...which is why I qualified this observation just above that sentence:

 

 

But we don't see that, because the cowards that use these displays are currently on one side of this debate, the wrong side. And since they can't win logically, they use emotion to circumvent the critical thinking parts of the brain.

 

The both sides do it is actually quite accurate the majority of the time. That's why each side has such a hard time bullshitting each other...it is not rare in the least.

 

I was there, when we were trying to talk about that and far worse, and it wasn't some advisory panel meeting in public and handing recommendations in either. And it was not "obvious to everyone" - you couldn't get the gun rights advocates to pay the slightest attention to it, or see the obvious right in front of their faces. They're living with an executive branch their guy set up (actually, a far more competently run and moderate version) while they cheered and voted and sneered and spit on the hippies - and they sure don't like it now, but it's hard to sympathize. We're still wiping the spit off, from when we tried to warn them.

 

I'm sorry, this is absolutely false. We were not talking about how to control speech to prevent more 9/11's. You're lost in your previous rant about the Patriot Act, and how rare it is that both sides do the same things...funny enough, yet again, Obama and the democrats had no problem with the Patriot Act on their watch. See? Not rare at all, my friend.

 

 

Baloney. The reason you don't see that kind of stuff is because there isn't any available - those are imaginary, presumed, and hypothetical circumstances, not real life events that anyone has on record. The NRA and their rightwing support has no honor, and no honesty, no integrity, and no principles - look at the last few years of political ads.

 

Ha ha, um, try reading about the Alabama woman that just protected herself and two kids with a .38 revolver. That's just recent memory from pop culture news. I haven't even googled yet, for the thousands of examples NRA could use to trot out emotional arguments with letters from kids their parents made them write.

I just saw a commercial that said the president was a hypocrite because his children are protected by armed guards, the dog and pony show has more than a bit of republican dogs and ponies...

No, that dog and pony show would be more like the NRA trotting out some kids that were saved from home invaders by their parents with guns, or pictures of children that were killed during a violent crime because their parents did *not* have guns, or only had a 7 bullet clip..."Please Mr. Obama, don't take my mommy's gun away or she can't save me"..."Mr. President, why would you not let my mommy have a gun to save my brother? He is dead now"

But we don't see that, because the cowards that use these displays are currently on one side of this debate, the wrong side. And since they can't win logically, they use emotion to circumvent the critical thinking parts of the brain.

Like I said, if we were talking about GWB and controlled speech it would suddenly be obvious to everyone. But instead, it's Obama and gun control, two favorites of left wingers.

So we're divided right down the middle, again..or still. However you want to put it. In the election of 2012, the people sent gridlock right back to Washington, because that's how we are as a country. Don't you just love federal government? They divide the american people more than any enemy could ever hope for.

And the dog and pony show continues...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/kids-write-letters-to-obama-on-gun-control/

 

This morning the White House released handwritten letters to the President from some of the children who will be at the White House when President Obama unveils his plan to prevent gun violence.

 

This is another example of how this is about ideological opportunity, not to "save children". As has been stated many times, by many gun rights advocates, not one of the proposed solutions by Biden's Task Force would do anything to stop Adam Lanza and this mass murder at Sandy Hook. But that doesn't stop the Obama administration from using children from that very school to shield the outcries of his overreach. How freaking offensive.

More "for the children" emotional crap that does nothing for the children, rather it provides cover for executive overreach and cowards that don't want to debate honestly. Trot out the victims democrats...just like you always do when you can't win on the issues and everyone knows you're full of sh!t.

I have no faith at all in the Obama administration's intentions. Zero. This is a travesty for personal sovereignty. Every gun rights advocate sees right through this bull. It's not remotely difficult. Amazing how many minds are on vacation right now buying this complete crap...

This makes me want to join the NRA. Great job...

No doubt you're right about 1 man 1 vote. So let each state have 6 congressmen and 2 senators, but all non-partisan. These people are supposedly sent to Washington as a means of protecting and building our nation as a whole, not to subsidize one political party or specific area.

Uh, no. These people are supposedly sent to Washington to represent the will of the people. Specifically, the House of Representatives are meant to be the voice of a swath of people, while the Senate was meant to be the voice of the sovereign State. Then we let politics and popularism take the State's voice away and passed the 17th Amendment so that Senators could merely be another tier of the people's voice, no longer insulated from politics and the dangers of populism. We have since gone further down that path with the popular election of the executive (in each state), so that we now have essentially 3 tiers of public representation, none of them insulated from the whims and fleeting wishes of a democratic public.

That's why we can't pass a budget, pay our bills, or fight honest wars. The parts of the government that were designed to be buffered from our ridiculousness were undermined by our ridiculousness, so now we suffer from the loud and proud ignorance of populism. Democracy, losing its checks. It's quite predictable, really.

Looks like he needs a better vest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wUqUrR8L1Zo

Yes, and he'll need to get that plate wrapped around his entire body - not just a fraction of the torso. I'd like to see that vest protect against bullets coming from the side, or the back, legs, groin, and etc..he's only protecting about 10% of his surface area.

These are not force fields, they are protective gear that is cumbersome, and many cases heavy, and mostly limited to save someone from dying - not to shrug off bullets like superman. Armed resistance can take them down, whether they subsequently die or not.

I have to ask, on TV body armor, while keeping a person from being killed, doesn't totally negate the effects of being shot. Does wearing body armor allow you to just shrug off a pistol round or is the effect like it is portrayed on TV where the person is knocked unconscious or at least incapacitated for a short while after being shot?

 

From the looks of this video, you are not going to shrug it off. Imagine several rounds being plugged into this guy, wearing this vest. He will be on the ground, crying for his mother, if he can get a breath, that is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoUerMRuG90&feature=youtube_gdata

 

I'm still waiting for the argument that threat of subsequent execution or maltreatment effectively deters suicide, for example - or even recognition of the role such threat has played in mass murders past.

....followed by the argument that suicide being illegal effectively deters the practice...and then the argument that banning clip sizes and gun types effectively deters mass murder.

...and then the argument that home made bombs will kill less people than those banned guns...and then the argument for bomb control, that we can effectively eliminate all products that could be used to make bombs...

Yes, I'm waiting for all of those arguments, myself.

Rigney - we, the people, have killed innocent people in the pursuit of justice. Capital Punishment has flaws, even if you think it's an effective deterent, just like innocent people have been incarcerated. The difference is, one is permanent, the other can be arguably compensated. Our justice system is designed to allow every opportunity for an innocent person to be exonerated - and we err on the side of letting guilty go free. I am damn proud of that too.

(Although I'm not very proud of how stubborn our system is about freeing the convicted innocent with subsequent evidence that proves their innocence...very shameful)

I wouldn't change much about the principles in the US constitution. But I would make a major change in the way it is written and interpreted. One of the things that has always bugged me, and I think most everyone else, is that we can have judges with various interpretation techniques. That seems silly. Let's write the constitution with a specified interpretation. Think encryption.

Strict Constructionism is only admirable if we write it to be interpreted that way. With strict constructionism we avoid most of the problems with "textual originalism", "original meaning", "original intent", and etc. But it has to be written to be construed strictly in order for that to work. Ie..it has to be transmitted with DSP encryption in order to receive it DSP encrypted and extract the correct intelligence.

 

There's a related article about this:

 

"‘We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World"

 

http://www.nytimes.c...-the-world.html

 

It is not the least bit surprising about the hostility toward the rigidity of the US constitution. It is quite predictable actually with a great big "duh" - it's why such a thing exists. It checks democracy. What is democracy? Rule of the majority. Of *course* the majority will be offended by any document that impedes their will.

'Damnit, the majority agrees that brown people should be at the service of all white people, but this stupid, rigid, old fashioned, relic of the past constitution is magically worshipped by the institutions created by it and won't let the people's voice be heard'.

Of course, the modern arguments don't contain such blatantly ugly values, but rather values that are "sensible" to today's standards, our current position in evolution.

The constitution has done a great job. It has not been perfect in the past, but our overarching values changed, and we changed the document with it and righted previous wrongs. No doubt, we will do so again as our culture and sensibilities change and evolve even more. A hundred years from now, we'll be shocked at some of the values we think of as sensible today, and that they were protected by the document.

The people the United States are divided today. And our government is too. We *are* being properly represented. That is the point of our government - not to be efficient, but to be inclusive and representative. Our government is not designed to move and do things when we are not in agreement. Our government is designed to freeze, until we have consensus in order to move. The games congress plays are the mechanics that force this attribute.

From what I can tell, our constitution is just fine. It's doing its job. Of course any majority, any day of the given week, conservative or liberal, is going to have choice words for a "antiquated" document that is protecting the rights of the current minority.

Some interesting facts to render some much needed perspective within the whirlwind emotion we're using to generate new laws...

http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/01/10/reasons-5-facts-on-guns-and-gun-violence

1. Violent crime – including violent crime using guns – has dropped massively over the past 20 years.

2. Mass shootings have not increased in recent years.

3. Schools are getting safer.

4. There Are More Guns in Circulation Than Ever Before.

5. “Assault Weapons Bans” Are Generally Ineffective.

 

I meant gun owners perceive Obama as taking away an unalienable right to bear arms... which is untrue except at the margins.

 

And now with the threat of executive order, these perceptions are being validated.

Exploiting tragedy for political ends is a prominent component in this debate now. It would be more obvious to the anti-gun crowd if a different set of politics were at play.

If we had a president, say George W Bush, that had been previously vocally hostile to free speech... "they get bitter, they cling to free speech and diversity". And then after a horrifying mass shooting we discover hate speech on their facebook page, and subscriptions to fringe extremist speech. Then to watch, in dismay, as this speech is interpreted as the problem. "How long are we going to allow hate speech to fuel mass killers and murder our children?" becomes the standard line, instead of blame on guns, mental illness, and etc.

Followed by a Congress that "must act now", speeches from George Bush that "there will be action" to deal with speech, followed further by threat of executive order to limit speech.

Suddenly the notion that this tragedy is being exploited to further the ends of a president and party hostile to free speech would be shouted from the mountain tops.

Just something to think about. Obama is validating every paranoid accusation about his hostility toward personal sovereignty and the role of guns in the republic. It does appear that anti-gun ideology is exploiting this tragedy. None of the solutions being discussed by Biden's "task force" would have interfered with Adam Lanza. None of them. If the tragedy that Adam Lanza executed is the "cause for action" then why aren't we coming up with solutions that would have caught him? This is a stiff point that validates the argument for political exploitation.

 

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. - Unknown