Forget rifles, we have to ban hammers !

[Gipper]

The three points you brought up were quite divergent, where only one of them (guns) had been in any prior discussion. To slog through abortion and global warming at the usual pace of this forum along with the taunt in your final paragraph was reason for me to ignore it.

I consider it playground taunting when I go through a post where 60% of it is a silly reductio ad absurdum and ends with "NOW, wait for the leftwing cries of "Un-Constitutional"!". If your reductio ad absurdum had a small bit of elegance or finesse I would have considered it more seriously.

And yes, I once took a course that covered most techniques of informal logic.

How can anyone think logically and be a liberal? I don't think it possible. Everything liberalism is responsible for, in our nation, has resulted in disaster. So, again, how can one be a liberal and claim to have the ability to think logically?

 

[cashmcall]

read the link once lol

I just clicked the link..remember i'm just a dumb big-ole bully..

 

[cashmcall]

^ Am I right or wrong that many liberals support what they see as a "Right To Die"? If I'm correct about that, I'm surprised liberals are so heartless when it comes to allowing folks a gun in order to take their lives more quickly and more easily. By denying such folks a firearm, liberals are forcing those citizens to take their lives by cutting their throats with a knife or hitting themselves over the head with a hammer??? That's intellectually inconsistent, and it seems very cruel to me.

It seems very cruel to me to..tough way to go..

 

[cashmcall]

www.Idon'thavetimetoreadallofthatwhydontyoupostyourownthoughts.com

Because...... facts.......matter..please read it..

 

[Lagboltz]

^ Am I right or wrong that many liberals support what they see as a "Right To Die"? If I'm correct about that, I'm surprised liberals are so heartless when it comes to allowing folks a gun in order to take their lives more quickly and more easily. By denying such folks a firearm, liberals are forcing those citizens to take their lives by cutting their throats with a knife or hitting themselves over the head with a hammer??? That's intellectually inconsistent, and it seems very cruel to me.

You are confusing "right to die" with suicide. There are people in a coma or with painful debilitating diseases on their death beds with no energy to lift a knife, let alone a gun. "Right to die" refers more to "pull the plug" or "do not resuscitate" rather than suicide. This leaves the question about the latter two being murder.

My wife and I personally have a right-to-die clause in my will.

 

[Lagboltz]

How can anyone think logically and be a liberal? I don't think it possible. Everything liberalism is responsible for, in our nation, has resulted in disaster. So, again, how can one be a liberal and claim to have the ability to think logically?

I am now wondering how conservatives can make such blanket statements and claim an ability in logic.

 

[TheJPRD]

The three points you brought up were quite divergent, where only one of them (guns) had been in any prior discussion. To slog through abortion and global warming at the usual pace of this forum along with the taunt in your final paragraph was reason for me to ignore it.

Please excuse me for providing multiple examples of flawed, leftwing logic that weren't being discussed in this thread. Had I neglected to do so, I suspect you'd have accused me of having only one example in my commentary. My final paragraph wasn't a "Taunt", it was a prediction of how the leftwingers here would respond. I was right again, wasn't I?

I consider it playground taunting when I go through a post where 60% of it is a silly reductio ad absurdum and ends with "NOW, wait for the leftwing cries of "Un-Constitutional"!". If your reductio ad absurdum had a small bit of elegance or finesse I would have considered it more seriously.

I'm disappointed that your definition of "playground taunting" and mine are so different. Mea culpa. However, you conveniently avoided the questions I asked, opting for the oft-used leftist tactic of "personal ridicule". Feel free to call my commentary "absurd" and "in-elegant". Regardless of your unsupported claims, ego narro verum!

And yes, I once took a course that covered most techniques of informal logic.

It might help to take additional courses, this time in "Formal Logic" and "Formal Debate". As an additional insight into the art of "formal debate", you should avoid making the egregious error of underestimating your debating opponent in the future. That's not wise! Neither is it wise to avoid the questions asked of you by your opponent as you've done here. In formal debate, doing so will cost you much, and even casual observers will note your purposeful oversight.

 

[Gipper]

I am now wondering how conservatives can make such blanket statements and claim an ability in logic.

I was hoping you would respond with something like that.

We need to take stock on the consequences of liberalism in our society/world. What do you think about that?

Let me start.

1. Since liberalism infected the p-schools about 50 years ago, are the schools better today or worse?
2. Since Roe v Wade and the murder of 50 million Americans in the womb, are we as a society better or worse?
3. With the liberal changes in divorce law, are we better off today or worse?
4. With the huge implementation of welfare/social programs, are we better off or worse?
5. With the huge involvement of government in our medical sector, are we better off or worse?
6. With the huge deficits generated by liberalism, are we better off or worse?
7. With the huge growth of the central government promoted by liberals, are we better off or worse?

 

[TheJPRD]

You are confusing "right to die" with suicide. There are people in a coma or with painful debilitating diseases on their death beds with no energy to lift a knife, let alone a gun. "Right to die" refers more to "pull the plug" or "do not resuscitate" rather than suicide. This leaves the question about the latter two being murder.

My wife and I personally have a right-to-die clause in my will.

I'm not the least bit confused. The term "Right to Die" has oft been used to "justify" the actions of such folks as Jack Kevorkian. Call the act what you will, terminology doesn't distract me from the issue at hand; that being the inconsistent and flawed logic of the leftwing. The question here is whether that "logic" only applies to what YOU and other leftwingers tell us, or whether it is a universal logic that you apply across the board. You've not addressed that question, nor have you addessed the question of leftwing demogogues who constantly attack the motives of Conservatives. Unless and until you address those relevant questions, I must assume that your position is inconistent, non-objective, and self-serving.

 

[Gipper]

I'm not the least bit confused. The term "Right to Die" has oft been used to "justify" the actions of such folks as Jack Kevorkian. Call the act what you will, terminology doesn't distract me from the issue at hand; that being the inconsistent and flawed logic of the leftwing. The question here is whether that "logic" only applies to what YOU and other leftwingers tell us, or whether it is a universal logic that you apply across the board. You've not addressed that question, nor have you addessed the question of leftwing demogogues who constantly attack the motives of Conservatives. Unless and until you address those relevant questions, I must assume that your position is inconistent, non-objective, and self-serving.

and I might add illogical....but I won't.....

 

[Lagboltz]

I'm not the least bit confused. The term "Right to Die" has oft been used to "justify" the actions of such folks as Jack Kevorkian. Call the act what you will, terminology doesn't distract me from the issue at hand; that being the inconsistent and flawed logic of the leftwing. The question here is whether that "logic" only applies to what YOU and other leftwingers tell us, or whether it is a universal logic that you apply across the board. You've not addressed that question, nor have you addessed the question of leftwing demogogues who constantly attack the motives of Conservatives. Unless and until you address those relevant questions, I must assume that your position is inconistent, non-objective, and self-serving.

You are correct. "Right to Die" generally means "assisted suicide". I was thinking about he concept of "Do Not Resuscitate." However, I personally would also like the option of "Right to Die" if I were in the position of my father-in-law who was totally incapacitated, bedridden, in diapers, and was fed with a stomach tube for a full year. An OD of some strong sedative would be fine. Not a gun or knife as you or your friends suggested.

I don't know why you think I should address the question of left-wing demagogues. If you are referring specifically to me, you will have to remind me of you biggest concerns of my demagoguery, and where I attacked your motives.

 

[Lagboltz]

I was hoping you would respond with something like that.

We need to take stock on the consequences of liberalism in our society/world. What do you think about that?

Let me start.

1. Since liberalism infected the p-schools about 50 years ago, are the schools better today or worse?
2. Since Roe v Wade and the murder of 50 million Americans in the womb, are we as a society better or worse?
3. With the liberal changes in divorce law, are we better off today or worse?
4. With the huge implementation of welfare/social programs, are we better off or worse?
5. With the huge involvement of government in our medical sector, are we better off or worse?
6. With the huge deficits generated by liberalism, are we better off or worse?
7. With the huge growth of the central government promoted by liberals, are we better off or worse?

1. Shared fault. No child left behind is a disaster.
2. Better off.
3. Better off. Reduces court costs and lawyer fees.
4. Better off, but The feds raided several trillion from the SS trust, spent it and screwed it up.
5. Millions are better off.
6. Shared fault.
7. Shared fault. We are worse off.

Here is a list of what liberals and democrats have done. I haven't checked it for veracity. I know you will not agree that all were without disaster, but you said, "Everything liberalism is responsible for, in our nation, has resulted in disaster." If you find a few things in this list that were without disaster, then your use of the qualifier "Everything" was much too broad.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/14/156663/-What-Have-Liberals-and-Democrats-Ever-Done-For-Us#

Social Security
Medicare/Medicaid
The GI Bill
Endangered Species Act
Environmental Laws
The Space Program
The Peace Corps
Americorps
The Civil Rights Movement
Earned Income Tax Credit
Family & Medical Leave Act
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Americans With Disabilities Act
Freedom of Information Act
Women's right to control their reproductive future
Allowing citizens to view their own credit records
The Internet
Balancing the federal budget
The Brady Bill (5-day wait on handgun purchases for background checks)
Lobbying Disclosure Act
"Motor-Voter" Act
The Voting Rights Act
Unemployment Insurance
Food Stamps/WIC
Peace between Israel and Egypt
Peace between Israel and Jordan
The Department of Education
The Department of Energy
The Department of Transportation
The Department of Housing and Urban Development
Labor Laws
The Marshall Plan
Winning World War II
Food Safety Laws
Workplace Safety Laws
The Tennessee Valley Project
The Civilian Conservation Corps
The Securites and Exchange Commission
Women's Right to Vote
Universal Public Education
National Weather Service
Product Labeling Laws
Truth in Advertising Laws
Morrill Land Grant Act
Rural Electrification
Public Universities
Bank Deposit Insurance (FDIC)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Public Broadcasting
Supporting the establishment of Israel
The United Nations
NATO

 

[TheJPRD]

You are correct. "Right to Die" generally means "assisted suicide". I was thinking about he concept of "Do Not Resuscitate." However, I personally would also like the option of "Right to Die" if I were in the position of my father-in-law who was totally incapacitated, bedridden, in diapers, and was fed with a stomach tube for a full year. An OD of some strong sedative would be fine. Not a gun or knife as you or your friends suggested.

"Assisted suicide" is one issue that's been difficult for me to establish a morally-comfortable position for myself. I understand your point of view, for I've seen examples that would cause me to embrace that view myself. I still cannot estabish a position about it in which I'm 100% comfortable. Because of my own uncertainty about the issue, I am not comfortable debating it. The problem I had with Kevorkian was that he seemed to enjoy helping people kill themselves.

I don't know why you think I should address the question of left-wing demagogues. If you are referring specifically to me, you will have to remind me of you biggest concerns of my demagoguery, and where I attacked your motives.

I wasn't accusing you of being a demogogue. My question was an attempt to solicit your agreement with me that such tactics when aimed at Conservative pro-gun advocates and anti-abortion advocates are Wrong and should be condemned. IF the practice is wrong for Conservatives to employ, then it should be wrong when employed by the left.

My primary question, however, remains an important one that I hope you'll answer for us. Why does the "logic" used by liberals to justify gun control, child obesity, and global warming not apply across-the-board on all other issues? If such "logic" is sound, it should be applicable universally.

 

[Openmind]

http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/point-blank-summary.html

You do realize that this link refers to an article published in 1991, right?
At that time, the "official" number of firearms in the US was around 200 millions. Today it is greater than 270 millions.

 

[Lagboltz]

"Assisted suicide" is one issue that's been difficult for me to establish a morally-comfortable position for myself. I understand your point of view, for I've seen examples that would cause me to embrace that view myself. I still cannot estabish a position about it in which I'm 100% comfortable. Because of my own uncertainty about the issue, I am not comfortable debating it. The problem I had with Kevorkian was that he seemed to enjoy helping people kill themselves.

I wasn't accusing you of being a demogogue. My question was an attempt to solicit your agreement with me that such tactics when aimed at Conservative pro-gun advocates and anti-abortion advocates are Wrong and should be condemned. IF the practice is wrong for Conservatives to employ, then it should be wrong when employed by the left.

My primary question, however, remains an important one that I hope you'll answer for us. Why does the "logic" used by liberals to justify gun control, child obesity, and global warming not apply across-the-board on all other issues? If such "logic" is sound, it should be applicable universally.

Kovorkian was a brazen idiot who was out for publicity. His grandstanding degraded the very thing he was striving for. He really should have stayed quiet about it.

Many conservatives and liberals on this board often uses tactics of a demagogue. And also there are too many posts that say, "ALL {liberals, conservatives} {are, do, think} X." I don't often respond to blanket statements like that, except that Gipper had specific examples that made it an easier response as in post #102.

I don't know what you mean by the "logic", as if the same logic applies to all three issues. It seems that different logic is used for each issue.
We have covered gun control already - a constitutional issue.
The New York ban on large cups was a bit silly, and seemed to be intended to bring the problem out in the open.
Global warming involves data analysis and scientific modeling.

I don't see a commonality in the "logic".