Ford to sell 600 horsepower assault vehicle in 2016. Why don't libs scream about this?

[westwall]

0
No. You use lack of thought and claim it is rational. Your version of "rational" thought is characterized by it's extremely simplistic (I would classify it as barely above the level of a baboon's thought processes, but that would probably be an insult to baboons) process. You are so terrified of actually having to think about anything that you have reduced everything down to "yes" "no" questions. Like I said, a baboon uses more of their brain than you do.

Again, trolling, no rational response to the fact that you posted a fallacy, and a dogmatic one at that. "A" said there are Natural Rights, and "A" matters but you don't, therefore Natural Rights are true. That, kiddos, is a fallacy.

Nope. Yours is the fallacy bucko. It is after all a singular POV, namely yours. I have supported my statements with the opinions of philosophers who were far smarter than you or me and who lived for millennia before us. Mine is a reality based on the thoughts of people devoted to the process of thinking (unlike you who flee from thought) and who were able to devote a significant portion of their lives to that pursuit while you once again run screaming from the very thought of having to think.

Nope. It's you who is the crazy person here. Not me.

 

[westwall]

She has no Rights till she is born alive. Once she has arrived squalling into the world all of her Rights attach. Then it is merely keeping her protected till she is able to defend herself.

So, had we killed her while still in the womb but also still perfectly viable, at say, 8 months and three weeks, she had no Natural Rights?

Correct.

Okay, tell us, does a fetus born at six months and unable to breath for herself or control her body temperature without our technology have Natural Rights?

Nope. Has to be born alive and capable of maintaining life unsupported for at least a few minutes. Face it. If there were no natural rights any tom dick or harry could walk up and stab you to death and you would have no recourse. In your silly little world it is survival of the fittest. A lawyer is all well and good but when you're fertilizer they ain't going to do you much good now are they?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

[I have supported my statements with the opinions of philosophers who were far smarter than you or me and who lived for millennia before us. Mine is a reality based on the thoughts of people devoted to the process of thinking (unlike you who flee from thought) and who were able to devote a significant portion of their lives to that pursuit while you once again run screaming from the very thought of having to think.

Nope. It's you who is the crazy person here. Not me.

Case in point, a pure example of a fallacy. "A" said the world is flat, so even though we now know this:

The world is flat. After all, "A" said so and he was very smart...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Face it. If there were no natural rights any tom dick or harry could walk up and stab you to death and you would have no recourse.

In reality, that is absolutely correct. The only reason they may not do such a thing, is because we, men, have passed a law against such a thing, and they will be punished, if caught, but that won't help me in the slightest will it, I'm dead, I have no recourse.

If there were Natural Rights against such a thing, I'd be protected from that thing but, I am nothing like protected from that by Nature, it could happen as I type these very words. I am "protected" only by the rights that men have created, including the right not to be stabbed to death just for the hell of it. Natural Rights, there aren't any.

 

[bucs90]

Americans do far more killing with cars than with guns so why don't libs ask "why would anyone want such a car except to endanger and terrorize other drivers.?

You can’t buy a Ford GT yet, but if you want one, start saving now—prices are expected to begin at as much as $400,000. One look at its stats tells you all you need to know: a mid-engine twin-turbo V-6 good for more than 600 hp, full carbon-fiber construction and body panels, and active aerodynamics. Power will be sent to the rear wheels courtesy of a seven-speed dual-clutch automatic; sadly, a manual will not be available. Production starts in 2016; expect the total to be less than 1000 cars.

Cars are necessary, guns are not. As for this, your cash and your funeral, save it for the track.

Guns have built and secured more empires, superpowers, states and cities than cars ever will. Cars are a luxury. Guns (aka....weapons) are a necessity.

In medieval times...a town without swords would be conquered. Libs of their time would want to ban swords. Then bow/arrows.

A gun is merely the latest version of man's weapons. I know you hate it because...well...you're a pussy. But weapons are a necessity in any great society. HOWEVER...you're blessed. See...you live in a nation where soldiers and cops are willing to carry the weapons needed to keep evil mostly away from the citizens. So...you can be a whiny lib and bitch about the world while others protect it.



A gun is the modern day sword. And if in medieval times a townsperson spoke of banning swords...well...they'd be considered suicidal or mentally ill.

 

[bucs90]

Face it. If there were no natural rights any tom dick or harry could walk up and stab you to death and you would have no recourse.

In reality, that is absolutely correct. The only reason they may not do such a thing, is because we, men, have passed a law against such a thing, and they will be punished, if caught, but that won't help me in the slightest will it, I'm dead, I have no recourse.

If there were Natural Rights against such a thing, I'd be protected from that thing but, I am nothing like protected from that by Nature, it could happen as I type these very words. I am "protected" only by the rights that men have created, including the right not to be stabbed to death just for the hell of it. Natural Rights, there aren't any.

If such a thing occurred....and you found yourself being chased by a man with a very large knife....WHAT would you want to protect yourself?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Guns have built and secured more empires, superpowers, states and cities than cars ever will. Cars are a luxury. Guns (aka....weapons) are a necessity.

Guns aren't a necessity for everyone but it is necessary that every reasonably law-abiding citizen have the RIGHT to have guns. Governments do not police themselves.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Face it. If there were no natural rights any tom dick or harry could walk up and stab you to death and you would have no recourse.

In reality, that is absolutely correct. The only reason they may not do such a thing, is because we, men, have passed a law against such a thing, and they will be punished, if caught, but that won't help me in the slightest will it, I'm dead, I have no recourse.

If there were Natural Rights against such a thing, I'd be protected from that thing but, I am nothing like protected from that by Nature, it could happen as I type these very words. I am "protected" only by the rights that men have created, including the right not to be stabbed to death just for the hell of it. Natural Rights, there aren't any.

If such a thing occurred....and you found yourself being chased by a man with a very large knife....WHAT would you want to protect yourself?

My brains, my ability to defend myself, and hopefully, others in my society (including the ones we pay) who come to my aid. Power in numbers. I'm not about to walk the earth armed because I'm afraid of some nutter.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Americans do far more killing with cars than with guns so why don't libs ask "why would anyone want such a car except to endanger and terrorize other drivers.?

You can’t buy a Ford GT yet, but if you want one, start saving now—prices are expected to begin at as much as $400,000. One look at its stats tells you all you need to know: a mid-engine twin-turbo V-6 good for more than 600 hp, full carbon-fiber construction and body panels, and active aerodynamics. Power will be sent to the rear wheels courtesy of a seven-speed dual-clutch automatic; sadly, a manual will not be available. Production starts in 2016; expect the total to be less than 1000 cars.

Cars are necessary, guns are not. As for this, your cash and your funeral, save it for the track.

Since when have high performance cars become a necessity?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Americans do far more killing with cars than with guns so why don't libs ask "why would anyone want such a car except to endanger and terrorize other drivers.?

You can’t buy a Ford GT yet, but if you want one, start saving now—prices are expected to begin at as much as $400,000. One look at its stats tells you all you need to know: a mid-engine twin-turbo V-6 good for more than 600 hp, full carbon-fiber construction and body panels, and active aerodynamics. Power will be sent to the rear wheels courtesy of a seven-speed dual-clutch automatic; sadly, a manual will not be available. Production starts in 2016; expect the total to be less than 1000 cars.

Cars are necessary, guns are not. As for this, your cash and your funeral, save it for the track.

Since when have high performance cars become a necessity?

Care to apply that logic to guns? Oh right, didn't think so...

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Americans do far more killing with cars than with guns so why don't libs ask "why would anyone want such a car except to endanger and terrorize other drivers.?

You can’t buy a Ford GT yet, but if you want one, start saving now—prices are expected to begin at as much as $400,000. One look at its stats tells you all you need to know: a mid-engine twin-turbo V-6 good for more than 600 hp, full carbon-fiber construction and body panels, and active aerodynamics. Power will be sent to the rear wheels courtesy of a seven-speed dual-clutch automatic; sadly, a manual will not be available. Production starts in 2016; expect the total to be less than 1000 cars.

Cars are necessary, guns are not. As for this, your cash and your funeral, save it for the track.

Since when have high performance cars become a necessity?

Care to apply that logic to guns? Oh right, didn't think so...

Of course I do.
Why wouldnt I when you make it so easy?
You see there's this thing called the 2nd amendment......

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Americans do far more killing with cars than with guns so why don't libs ask "why would anyone want such a car except to endanger and terrorize other drivers.?

You can’t buy a Ford GT yet, but if you want one, start saving now—prices are expected to begin at as much as $400,000. One look at its stats tells you all you need to know: a mid-engine twin-turbo V-6 good for more than 600 hp, full carbon-fiber construction and body panels, and active aerodynamics. Power will be sent to the rear wheels courtesy of a seven-speed dual-clutch automatic; sadly, a manual will not be available. Production starts in 2016; expect the total to be less than 1000 cars.

Cars are necessary, guns are not. As for this, your cash and your funeral, save it for the track.

Since when have high performance cars become a necessity?

Care to apply that logic to guns? Oh right, didn't think so...

Of course I do.
Why wouldnt I when you make it so easy?
You see there's this thing called the 2nd amendment......

Okay, so you believe you need a gun, why, using your logic, should we not limit you to what they had 230 years ago? That's good enough right, you don't need a Super____ anything when a normal regular one will do the job eh?

A Model T and a six shooter would get you safely around town right?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Americans do far more killing with cars than with guns so why don't libs ask "why would anyone want such a car except to endanger and terrorize other drivers.?

Cars are necessary, guns are not. As for this, your cash and your funeral, save it for the track.

Since when have high performance cars become a necessity?

Care to apply that logic to guns? Oh right, didn't think so...

Of course I do.
Why wouldnt I when you make it so easy?
You see there's this thing called the 2nd amendment......

Okay, so you believe you need a gun, why, using your logic, should we not limit you to what they had 230 years ago? That's good enough right, you don't need a Super____ anything when a normal regular one will do the job eh?

A Model T and a six shooter would get you safely around town right?

Where in the 2nd does it say we are limited to muskets?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Cars are necessary, guns are not. As for this, your cash and your funeral, save it for the track.

Since when have high performance cars become a necessity?

Care to apply that logic to guns? Oh right, didn't think so...

Of course I do.
Why wouldnt I when you make it so easy?
You see there's this thing called the 2nd amendment......

Okay, so you believe you need a gun, why, using your logic, should we not limit you to what they had 230 years ago? That's good enough right, you don't need a Super____ anything when a normal regular one will do the job eh?

A Model T and a six shooter would get you safely around town right?

Where in the 2nd does it say we are limited to muskets?

Where does it say you are limited to slow cars? Same logic only the problem is, cars are necessary for most, while guns are not and while cars can kill they, unlike guns, were not designed to kill. You don't need a Supercar, and you absolutely don't need a Supergun, or any gun in most cases. If we base everything on needs, the Supercars go, and roughly 99% of all guns.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Since when have high performance cars become a necessity?

Care to apply that logic to guns? Oh right, didn't think so...

Of course I do.
Why wouldnt I when you make it so easy?
You see there's this thing called the 2nd amendment......

Okay, so you believe you need a gun, why, using your logic, should we not limit you to what they had 230 years ago? That's good enough right, you don't need a Super____ anything when a normal regular one will do the job eh?

A Model T and a six shooter would get you safely around town right?

Where in the 2nd does it say we are limited to muskets?

Where does it say you are limited to slow cars? Same logic only the problem is, cars are necessary for most, while guns are not and while cars can kill they, unlike guns, were not designed to kill. You don't need a Supercar, and you absolutely don't need a Supergun, or any gun in most cases. If we base everything on needs, the Supercars go, and roughly 99% of all guns.

You're the one bitching.
Personally I like scary looking sport rifles and fast cars.
And of course blowing shit up......

 

[westwall]

[I have supported my statements with the opinions of philosophers who were far smarter than you or me and who lived for millennia before us. Mine is a reality based on the thoughts of people devoted to the process of thinking (unlike you who flee from thought) and who were able to devote a significant portion of their lives to that pursuit while you once again run screaming from the very thought of having to think.

Nope. It's you who is the crazy person here. Not me.

Case in point, a pure example of a fallacy. "A" said the world is flat, so even though we now know this:

The world is flat. After all, "A" said so and he was very smart...

The difference being those people had something that they directly gained from their position. Namely power. My sources are long dead, thus they have no ulterior motive. Thus they are not an appeal to authority. Look it up.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

[I have supported my statements with the opinions of philosophers who were far smarter than you or me and who lived for millennia before us. Mine is a reality based on the thoughts of people devoted to the process of thinking (unlike you who flee from thought) and who were able to devote a significant portion of their lives to that pursuit while you once again run screaming from the very thought of having to think.

Nope. It's you who is the crazy person here. Not me.

Case in point, a pure example of a fallacy. "A" said the world is flat, so even though we now know this:

The world is flat. After all, "A" said so and he was very smart...

The difference being those people had something that they directly gained from their position. Namely power. My sources are long dead, thus they have no ulterior motive. Thus they are not an appeal to authority. Look it up.

Living or dead does not matter. You fallacy is exactly the same.

 

[westwall]

[I have supported my statements with the opinions of philosophers who were far smarter than you or me and who lived for millennia before us. Mine is a reality based on the thoughts of people devoted to the process of thinking (unlike you who flee from thought) and who were able to devote a significant portion of their lives to that pursuit while you once again run screaming from the very thought of having to think.

Nope. It's you who is the crazy person here. Not me.

Case in point, a pure example of a fallacy. "A" said the world is flat, so even though we now know this:

The world is flat. After all, "A" said so and he was very smart...

The difference being those people had something that they directly gained from their position. Namely power. My sources are long dead, thus they have no ulterior motive. Thus they are not an appeal to authority. Look it up.

Living or dead does not matter. You fallacy is exactly the same.

Wrong. Dead people have no Rights. That's the whole point silly boy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

[I have supported my statements with the opinions of philosophers who were far smarter than you or me and who lived for millennia before us. Mine is a reality based on the thoughts of people devoted to the process of thinking (unlike you who flee from thought) and who were able to devote a significant portion of their lives to that pursuit while you once again run screaming from the very thought of having to think.

Nope. It's you who is the crazy person here. Not me.

Case in point, a pure example of a fallacy. "A" said the world is flat, so even though we now know this:

The world is flat. After all, "A" said so and he was very smart...

The difference being those people had something that they directly gained from their position. Namely power. My sources are long dead, thus they have no ulterior motive. Thus they are not an appeal to authority. Look it up.

Living or dead does not matter. You fallacy is exactly the same.

Wrong. Dead people have no Rights. That's the whole point silly boy.

This discussion has nothing to do with their rights, it has to do with the fallacy you posted.

 

[westwall]

[I have supported my statements with the opinions of philosophers who were far smarter than you or me and who lived for millennia before us. Mine is a reality based on the thoughts of people devoted to the process of thinking (unlike you who flee from thought) and who were able to devote a significant portion of their lives to that pursuit while you once again run screaming from the very thought of having to think.

Nope. It's you who is the crazy person here. Not me.

Case in point, a pure example of a fallacy. "A" said the world is flat, so even though we now know this:

The world is flat. After all, "A" said so and he was very smart...

The difference being those people had something that they directly gained from their position. Namely power. My sources are long dead, thus they have no ulterior motive. Thus they are not an appeal to authority. Look it up.

Living or dead does not matter. You fallacy is exactly the same.

Wrong. Dead people have no Rights. That's the whole point silly boy.

This discussion has nothing to do with right, it has to do with the fallacy you posted.

I posted no fallacy. It is you posting all the fallacies. It's about time you got a clue.