BaconToes said:Does a Higher Being Exist?
EDIT: Changing the title since it is a bit misleading
Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this debate!
Fredsnephew said:Reams and reams of argument, still getting nowhere nearer the truth.
God. Big Bang. Flat Earth. All theories, no proof.
Actually. I doubt that anyone really believes that the Earth is flat.
Personally I accept that the Spherical Earth theory was unequivocally proved, 500 years ago by a couple of sailors.
So is the Flat Earth a valid theory?
Just deliberate antagonism and fun debating.
Spiffy, only Trump isn't living there now. He was there in the 70s, 80s and 90s though;someone234 said:
Just off the top, much as you say you’re consolidating and analyzing arguments presented by the pro-gun control crowd, you don’t seem to have done that. You’ve provided, at best, a general overview of two points (not three, as your second point is just your interpretation of the actual argument behind the first point), dismissed the first as illogical based on what is already banned, and dismissed the latter based on… well, the former. Doesn’t seem like you’re getting into the actual argument behind each of these points, or even that you’ve addressed their underlying principles.
1) Assault (Style) weapons should be banned.
I have no doubt that some assault style weapons are banned. However, as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is now gone, and as there are still many legal guns classified as assault weapons, I don’t think there’s any question that some are currently not banned. I think there’s a lot of good debate regarding where we draw the line between assault weapons and non-assault weapons, but, contrary to your statement, people do clearly want to ban assault weapons, even if there is some variance in their definitions of what an assault weapon is.
2) Firearms that look like Assault Rifles should be banned.
It seems like your main point here is that aesthetics alone should not be used as a basis for banning any type of firearm. I don’t particularly know who’s making this argument. There are people arguing that toy guns that look an awful lot like firearms should be banned (and I’d be happy to argue for that), but that doesn’t seem to be your point. My experience with this type of argument is that people are concerned about certain firearms that are not classified as assault weapons and believe that they too should be banned. Those arguments are usually based on functionality, not aesthetics. I guess I’d agree with you that aesthetics alone shouldn’t determine whether a gun is considered for a ban, but again, I haven’t really seen this argument making the rounds. It seems instead that you’re presuming that this argument exists, when the argument is chiefly about functionality, not aesthetics.
3) Stricter gun control laws need to be implemented to prevent people from obtaining Firearms with intent to do harm.
I think, of all your responses, this is probably the most disquieting. If I have it correctly, your logic is as follows: this is rational (possibly even reasonable), yet because the same people who support this also support things that you find irrational, it should be opposed. Or, put another way, because there’s a policy that anti-gun individuals are presenting that you and others find ridiculous, any rational suggestions they make are tainted and therefore must be rejected. In what world is reasonable? Since when do we reject decent and rational policy ideas solely on the basis that you find fault with other, somewhat related policy ideas? You even state that most people would agree with, at the very least, improved enforcement of the laws we already have (which would likely include closing loopholes that have opened due to that lack of enforcement), yet those measures would be off the table because the people who show the strongest support for them also support actual gun bans. You’re quick to call their opposition insane, but you’re talking about a vast number of Americans working against what they feel is best for their country and their safety based on a perception that the other side might also want to implement supposedly illogical gun policy. Aren’t issues like this usually resolved by two sides coming together on the parts of the issue on which they agree? If that’s impossible here, then it takes two to tango. Pretending that this is all on the anti-gun crowd when you’re suggesting that pro-gun advocates are straight up rejecting policy ideas they agree with sounds absurd to me.
It does sound like your argument runs a bit deeper, but not much. The idea is that you can’t trust someone to implement decent policy so long as they have some interest in implementing bad policy as well. Setting aside the fact that I don’t agree with your characterization of those arguments, why can’t we trust a law that clearly spells out changes to, say, background checks as being solely about background checks? Is the concern that anti-gun people are going to enforce beyond the scope of the law? Is it that people will feel like they’re emboldening them to pass more laws? Both sound like slippery slope fallacies without any support.
The analogous story you’ve presented here is similarly fallacious. First, banning a gun is very different from banning a child, particularly from a school. The former is an item that would otherwise be available for purchase. The latter is a human being, which the state has an obligation to provide an affordable education. If a principal of a school started doing something like this, it would not only be against the law, but it would also challenge basic decency. An education is pretty much required for anyone to get anywhere in this country, and essentially denying a child access almost certainly relegates them to poverty. I don’t see how that applies to a gun ban in any way. Second, determining which child is “‘potentially’ violent” is an impossible task. There’s a stark difference between stating that a human is more prone to violence vs. stating that a gun has more capacity to inflict deadly injury. Third, you’re essentially characterizing the principle as a dictator capable of imposing his ideas for the school unilaterally unless there is outside intervention. Putting aside how that’s not even possible, policy doesn’t work that way. It’s not a single individual imposing their idea of how the country should work on the populace, and it comes with checks and balances internal to it.
Lastly, no one is sitting here saying that we must solve this issue now and all other issues related to gun violence should be shelved. It’s a false dichotomy to state that, by attempting to restrict access to legally obtained guns, we are fundamentally pushing away or delaying responses to illegally obtained guns. We can endeavor to solve both problems at the same time. There is no reason why one must come after the other.
Boats go over the horizon. This is an objective and observable fact.Erfisflat said:So, boats have been claimed, repeatedly, to go over a curve. This is supposed to happen at just 3 miles on the globe, and every globetard agrees this is the case without the first test to prove it. When a test (with actual measurements) is performed to falsify the claim, and a boat's bottom is seen nearly 4 times that distance and everyone ignores it